Question #2 - we've read both Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Gonzalez v. Raich (2005). Let's suppose New York state legalizes marijuana for recreational purposes and you want to open a dispensary to sell the product your business students and this is a "growing market! (I know, it's a dad joke). However, as we learned a couple of weeks ago, under federalism, federal law overrides state law, which suggests here that people buying product at your dispensary can still be charged with violating federal drug laws... Choose either a orb below and answer it. a) you and some other dispensary owners band together and file a class action challenging the federal law on commerce clause grounds and that Gonzalez v. Raich should be overturned. Reviewing what we've read in the chapter, what arguments would you make for narrowing the scope of the commerce clause? What kinds of things in some of the older commerce clause causes would help you? Find at least two previous cases and explain how they would help. (note - to do this, you'll need to make sure you've read the chapter). b) OR - another option - you're a federal judge and the New York dispensary owners ask you to overturn Gonzalez; the Trump administration argues Gonzalez is correct and urges you to uphold it. Write a 250-word comment in which you explain what Gonzalez found (include at least two quotes form the decision); then make your ruling on whether local dispensaries in 2019 can legally sell marijuana (that is, you overturn Gonzalez) or you uphold Gonzalez. Basically, you have to decide whether the commerce clause interpretation in Gonzalez should apply today - please base your decision on at least two (2) other rulings (HINT: you may want to look at U.S. v. Printz or Wickard v. Filburn). Your answer should explain how you see marijuana dispensaries relating to interstate commerce and why the federal government would, or would not, have the power of interstate commerce to punish dispensary owners/customers