Originally Posted by Slothrop
Much of what you just wrote makes little or no sense and is predicated on a great deal of misunderstanding.
Lopez 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.
I know the criteria laid out by Lopez, and I talked about that in the last section of my post when I questioned how you would classify a boxing match as an act of interstate commerce. On top of that I even told you the case that would support that, the most current, being raich v gonzalez.
Again though, the Lopez case is primarily about the government's power (fed) to regulate non economic activities, not economic activities such as boxing matches. It also greatly limits the commerce powers of the fed.
So it is clear to me you really have no clue about what you are talking about and on top of that if you actually did get a law degree and board certified you clearly don't practice constitutional law.