Raich (2005), South Dakota V. Texas (1987) and Lawrence V. Texas (2003). Moreover, the discussion will also highlight how these cases relate to the Federalists 10, 46 or 78 arguments.
The case of Gonzalez v. Raich (2005) is mainly related to the legal medical use of marijuana. In relation to this case, it can be ascertained that during the year 1996, California law passed the ‘Compassionate Use Act’, authorizing the use of marijuana for medical treatment. On the other hand, Controlled Substances Act (CSA) banned the use of the same. This difference in the viewpoints persisting between California law and CSA eventually led towards a conflicting situation. The major issue, which emerged in relation to the case, is mainly determining whether Congress is having the power to regulate marijuana production agreeable to the interstate commerce clause. Specially mentioning, this case addresses the federalism concept in the form of witnessing the involvement of both federal government and individual states concerning the regulation of producing and consuming marijuana (Oyez, Inc., “GONZALES v. RAICH”).
South Dakota v. Dole (1987) is related to the case wherein South Dakota sued district court against Dole and the US government in relation to the violation of Section 158. This particular Section sets the constitutional limits on Congress regarding the power based on “21st amendment to the US constitution.” In accordance with the South Dakota law, individuals aged 19 and above are permitted to buy beer having 3.2% alcohol. The case illustrates the dispute regarding the state and the power of federal government in relation to the implementation of a minimum drinking usage. Again, the involvement of state as well as the federal government in this jurisdiction issue relates the aforesaid case with the concept of federalism (Thomson Reuters, “SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S.