Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama
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.
You really do not have a clue what you're spouting on about
This is good ****. I'll explain it to you again: Although Lopez
dealt with what was found to be purely a local matter, the rule that came out of the case states the three things that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause. Follow? No amount of googling and wikipedia will save you. You're wrong, and you don't understand what you're talking about.
Boxing is an activity
that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It is not purely a local matter. When a big boxing match is held, hotel rooms are booked; plane tickets are purchased; people buy food in restaurants that moved in interstate commerce; people roll into town and bet millions of dollars; people travel all over the ****ing place. It's massive. It clearly impacts interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
This may seem odd to you, I know, but the Court has found Congress can regulate all kinds of **** under the Commerce Clause. Even things you wouldn't imagine could be related to interstate commerce. In fact, it was through the commerce clause that much of the Civil Rights legislation was upheld. For example, in Heart of Atlanta Motel
(1964) the court found the 1964 Civil Rights Act's proscription of racial discrimination in public accommodations to be constitutional because it found that it impacted interstate commerce. In Katzenbach v. McClungs
(1964) the Court said that because a substantial portion of the food served in Ollie's Barbecue restaurant had moved in interstate commerce that the owner couldn't discriminate against black customers.
Thanks for the review session. I enjoyed it.