View Single Post
Old 11-29-2012, 09:50 PM   #27
SweetHome_Bama
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 16,143
vCash: 10918
Default Re: Should the US federal government step in and regulate boxing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slothrop View Post
It's a damn shame that you are an ignoramus. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) to begin with.
In Lopez, the Court held that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to adopt legislation that 1) Regulates the channels of interstate commerce; 2) regulates the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce; or 3) regulates activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

You going to make me dig out my Con Law 1 outline? lol. Seriously. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Lopez case is about non-economic activity as well, to try to use that case to claim it gives the Fed power to regulate industry is ridiculous on its face and shows you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

On top of that Rehiquist said in the majority decision
Quote:
To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.
So I really don't understand what you are trying to claim by bringing up Lopez.

---

Another thing you fail to bring up is how a boxing event has any economic effect on other states or how it is interstate commerce at all.

I believe the only thing you would have to try to make that argument is raich, but it seems to me that only passed because Scalia was heavily anti-drugs and openly contradicted his earlier stance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
The federal government has regularly skirted that in the past using some generality. I forget exactly what it is now but is some weakly worded phrase and is responsible for a lot of federal regulation.
They do, most notably the Raich v gonzales, but that would be the case for the court to decide. It is my opnion that they do not have the constitutional authority to do so.
SweetHome_Bama is offline  Top
Reply With Quote