[pfannkuchen]

That’s not correct as far as I understand it. Prior to Wickard v. Filburn the federal government did not have the power to ban substances (since it isn’t explicitly specified in the constitution). If congress had passed a law doing so, that law would have been considered unconstitutional. Wickard v. Filburn is obviously ridiculous and should be overturned, but it never will be.

[burkaman]

The way I interpret a decision like that is the court saying "yes the government does have the power to do this and it always has, it is specified in the constitution and if you thought otherwise you've been reading it wrong." It's sort of a pointless philosophical distinction, but I wouldn't say the government didn't have that power before the decision, I'd say they did but they never tried to use it (unless the court was overturning a previous decision).

I'm aware that the Supreme Court sometimes completely changes its mind in a matter of decades, so it's possible a legislative prohibition would have been struck down 20 years before Wickard v. Filburn, but it's also possible the court would have come to the same unanimous decision. I don't know anything about legal history so if there's some obvious reason the 1918 court would have ruled differently then I apologize.

[umanwizard]

> The way I interpret a decision like that is the court saying "yes the government does have the power to do this and it always has, it is specified in the constitution and if you thought otherwise you've been reading it wrong."

That is indeed the theory but it’s completely fictional.