(01.06, 01.07 HC) In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal court, arguing that the Controlled Substances Act exceeded Congress's power.

In Gonzales v. Raich (2004), the Court delivered a 6 to 3 opinion that held that Congress had the authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress's power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.
Source: Oyez, Gonzales v. Raich (2004)

(A) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Gonzales v. Raich (2004) and United States v. Lopez (1995).

(B) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of United States v. Lopez led to a different holding than the holding in Gonzales v. Raich.

(C) Explain how members of the public who disagree with the holding in Gonzales v. Raich could act to limit its impact.