Practice SCOTUS FRQ 1 - Gonzales & Lopez

In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act that legalized the medical use of marijuana. However, that state law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Abuse Act, which made the possession of marijuana illegal. When federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) raided a medical marijuana user's home and confiscated the drug,  a group of people prescribed marijuana for medical reasons sued the federal government. They argued that the Controlled Substances Act exceeded the federal government's authority since the use of medical marijuana was completely within the state of California, not between states. 

The case reached the Supreme Court in 2004 with the case Gonzales v. Raich. In a 6:3 ruling, the Court ruled that the federal government did have the authority to prohibit medical marijuana possession and use, even though it was legal in California. It reasoned that since marijuana sales were a part of the national market, marijuana possession can be controlled by the federal government. 

Based on the information above, respond to the following questions.

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common in both Gonzales v. Raich (2004) and United States v. Lopez (1995). 

(B) Explain how the facts in Gonzales v. Raich (2004) and United States v. Lopez (1995) led to different rulings. 

(c) Describe an action that a pro medical marijuana interest group can take to limit the impact of the ruling in Gonzales v. Raich (2004).