Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama
You really have no idea about the case you are bringing up and how it applies to the discussion at hand.
The fact that you repeat the same thing over and over really doesn't confirm you have a grasp about what you are actually talking about.
As for Heart and Katzenback, great, you can throw in Wickard too. The problem is that the courts are not set in stone and the present make up of the court for the most part has not decided that way, outside of Raich v Gonzalez, mainly because of the restrictions placed in Lopez regarding what would fall under the commerce clause. That said again, the Lopez case ammounts to a restriction of what is the Fed can do under the commerce clause.
You have yet to make a case for how boxing or its commissions fall under any of those three criteria of interstate commerce, a point I have repetedly brought up that you continue to ignore. LOL.
I explained the applicable rule, which is still, clearly, good law. You don't understand how these things work. I explained why boxing is an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. You ignored it. Do you care to argue that boxing is an activity that does not substantially affect interstate commerce?