I'm confused Phyllis - What the response is , is nothing more than a fact.
No analysis, evaluation, or synthesis is needed to answer, no problem solving, calculating, statistics, ....
Just look up and state the fact.
In a Supreme Court case following the legalization of medical marijuana in California, the Court decided that the federal government could, in fact, intervene in the marijuana industry and enforce the federal bans on marijuana by virtue of the federal government's authority to protect and regulate inter-state trade and commerce. One of the somewhat strange components of this decision is that said inter-state trade and commerce is considered to be flatly illegal rather than the traditional role of the federal government in ensuring that inter-state trade of legal items be conducted on a fair and equal basis. This decision provides the federal government with a broad authority to intervene, but not one broad enough that it can legally intervene at all times. Accordingly, many elements of the marijuana industry in those states where it has been legalized or semi-legalized have little to fear from the federal government, unless they are moving it across state lines. However, this authority is, in fact, broad enough that the federal government has been able to justify raids and crackdowns in situations in which there is no direct inter-state trafficking.