need help re writing this part :

Applicable Law

According to Balman (2013) the United States Supreme Court divides its Commerce Clause cases into three categories. Of the three categories, the third and most category of "substantial effect" concerns the case of Gonzales v. Raich. Of all the categories the third is the most controversial in that Congress uses commerce power to regulate intrastate as opposed to interstate commerce (Balman, 2013). The case, in particular, are controversial because they deal 6 GONZALES V. RAICH with the federal regulation of law and geographical area that are otherwise regulated and controlled by the states. When Congress does involve itself in intrastate commerce matters the courts use the Commerce clause paradoxes to interpret the case and law. In Gonzales v. Raich the case involved all three paradoxes: Interstate, Commerce, and Substantial Paradox. The Supreme Court used Wickard v. Filburn (1942) stating that intrastate cultivation of cannabis was in fact undistinguishable from intrastate cultivation of wheat (Balman, 2013). Furthermore, the court cases used in the Ninth District court of Appeals, Lopez and Morrison, as stated by the Decision concerned limited purpose statutes while the Gonzales v. Raich case involved the significant and comprehensive CSA statute, which would be invalidated should the use of medicinal cannabis be allowed.