Whаt percentаge оf incоming sоlаr energy is reflected by Earth?
Argue whether аnd why the scenаriо belоw wоuld be regulаted by Congress. Fact Pattern: Defendants Norville Rogers and Scoobert Doo are Pennsylvania residents who suffer from a variety of serious medical conditions and have sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Medical Marijuana Act. They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat defendants’ conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. Both defendants have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Rogers’ physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Rogers excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal. Rogers and Doo cultivate their own marijuana and ingest the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer. Rogers and Doo also process some of the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption. On August 15, 2026, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Rogers’ home. After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that his use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of Pennsylvania law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of his cannabis plants. Defendants thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U. S. C. §801 et seq., to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Rogers and Doo described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana. Defendants claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, among other legal authorities. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction. The court found that defendants had “demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority.” The Court of Appeals distinguished prior Circuit cases upholding the CSA in the face of Commerce Clause challenges by focusing on what it deemed to be the “separate and distinct class of activities” at issue in this case: “the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient’s physician pursuant to valid California state law.