norml23 - Page 67

 nations° '° Comment, "New Light on the History on the Federal Judiciary
 Act of 1789, n 37 Harvard Law Review 49, 73 (1923). The FederaJ Courts
 have not wavered from this fundamenta_ principle in the 170 years since
 Hudson & Goodwin was decided°
 There is no question that the Congress has relied upon the
 so_caJled "cumulative effect" principle of Wickard v. Filburn, supra,
 as the constitutional justification for certain criminal statutes.
 Thus, in Perez v. United States, 40Z U.So !43 (1 971) and Champion vo
 Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) (the so-called "Lottery Case"), the power of
 Congress under the commerce cSause to exclude not only interstate, but
 a_so intrastate activities was affirmed. Nonetheless, scrutiny of every
 piece of federai criminal legislation, in terms of not only its
 language, but also its history, purpose, and effect, must aiways begin
 with the Supreme Court's definitive language in E.C. Knight Co. in
 mind:
 it is vital that the independence of the
 commercial power and of the police power, and the
 delimitation between them, however, sometimes
 perplexing, should a_ways be recognized and
 observed, for while the one furnishes the strongest
 bond of union, the other is essentially to the
 preservation of the autonomy of the States as
 required by our dual form of Government...
 156 U.S. at 13.
 The question of the delimitation of the commerce power and the
 power police is present with respect to the statute at bar because the
 legislative history of the CSA shows that the Justice Department not
 only recognized but acknowledged the dichotomy ir_ the statute: the
 basic regulatory drug control activities formerly conducted under the
 aegis of the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, as part of the Food and Drug
 Administration, were initially placed in Schedule _l and W; the
 basically law enforcement proscription of illicit drugs which formedy
 had been carried out by the Bureau of Narcotics, acting within the
 Department of Justice, were placed in Schedules i, 11 and V. See
 defendant's offer of proof; and see testimony of [{NOD Director
 Ingersoll, supra° Furthermore, the congressiona_ statement of the
 purpose of the CSA is phrased entirely in law-enforcement terms:
 This legislation is designed to dead in a