I'm glad to see Rep. John Conyers of Michigan get involved in challenging the DEA on their continued raids on patients using medical marijuana legally in their home states, and even using civil forfeiture laws to seize their property in such cases. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, he is considering holding hearings on the issue and sent a long letter to the acting administrator of the DEA asking serious questions. Like these:

Is the use of civil asset forfeiture, which has typically been reserved for the worst drug traffickers and kingpins, an appropriate tactic to employ against individuals who suffer from severe or chronic illness and are authorized to use medical marijuana under California law?

Has the DEA conducted any analysis of the potential economic consequences of using civil asset forfeiture in an area that is experiencing some of the nation's sharpest declines in property values?

The DEA has apparently sent letters to hundreds of property owners who either use medical marijuana or who lease land to the legal dispensaries set up under California law to distribute medical marijuana, threatening to seize their property under the asset forfeiture laws for helping facilitate this "crime." Absolutely appalling.

All of this can be blamed entirely on the Supreme Court, which issued one of the most indefensible rulings in its history in Gonzales v Raich. And yes, this one you can lay directly at the feet of the liberals on the court. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer were all in the majority in ruling that the federal government has the authority to overrule state medical marijuana laws.

Worse yet, they did so on the basis of an egregious misreading of the interstate commerce clause, interpreting it to allow federal regulation of transactions that were neither interstate nor commerce. And yes, I'll give special vitriol to Scalia as well for completely ignoring the original meaning of the commerce clause despite claiming to be an originalist, an absolutely perfect example of his intellectual inconsistency.

And I'll give all due credit to Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor, who got it right (and Thomas got it most right of all of them). Thomas correctly wrote, "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States." All the more reason not to take their argument seriously.