Editing New Federalism (section)

==On the Supreme Court==
From 1937 to 1995, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] did not void a single Act of Congress for exceeding Congress's power under the [[Commerce Clause|Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution]], instead holding that anything that could conceivably impact interstate commerce was subject to federal regulation. It was thus seen as a (narrow) victory for new federalism when the [[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]] Court reined in federal regulatory power in ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'' (1995) and ''[[United States v. Morrison]]'' (2000) by limiting Congress’s power to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court, in ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'' (2005), held that the federal government could outlaw the use of marijuana for medical purposes under the [[Commerce Clause]] even if the marijuana was never bought or sold, and never crossed state lines. [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice O'Connor]] dissented in ''Gonzalez'',<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf |title=transcript |access-date=2008-02-04 |archive-date=2011-12-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111214021633/http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> beginning her opinion by citing ''United States v. Lopez'', which she followed with a federalist reference to Justice [[Louis Brandeis]]'s dissenting opinion in ''[[New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann]].''