Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama
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 **** out of your ass.
On top of that Rehiquist said in the majority decision
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.
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.
Much of what you just wrote makes little or no sense and is predicated on a great deal of misunderstanding.
delineates the three things that Congress can regulate under its Commerce Clause power. As stated. Boxing falls under #3: it is an activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
To clear up a bit of your misunderstanding: The facts of the Lopez case involved what the Court found to be activity that did not substantially impact interstate commerce, toting a gun in a school zone. which is why the law in question failed (the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act). It didn't fit under any of the three categories. Boxing clearly does.