Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119.

26 U.S.C.A. §5000A.

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida, No. 11-398, Brief for Petitioners (Minimum Coverage Provision.

Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. v. Florida, No. 11-398, Brief for Petitioners (Minimum Coverage Provision) at 22 (“[T]he federal government is one of enumerated powers.”); Brief for Private Respondents on the Individual Mandate at 11 (“[W]hile the powers that remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite, the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.”) (internal quotations omitted); Brief for State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision at 18 (“It is common ground that the powers of the federal government “are few and defined” and those of the States “numerous and infinite.”) (citation omitted).

The Federalist No. 45 (James Madison).

The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton) (“Limitations [on legislative authority] can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.”).

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 423 (1819).

The Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton).

Barnett, Randy E., Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (2004).

See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 16-17 (2005).

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). See also Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 26-33; id. at 40 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market”).

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

With the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in [[Raich]], holding that the purely intrastate, non-commercial growth and consumption of marijuana for medical purposes can be banned via the commerce clause, most legal commentators view the outcomes in Lopez and Morrison as anomalies rather than foundational precedent for a broader trend.

Florida v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235, 1285 (11th Cir. 2011).

Id. at 1284.