Originally Posted by Slothrop
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?
You explained criteria for commerce clause decisions, doesn't hold up with how you think that covers Congress in making a regulatory body for a national boxing committee.
You have not explained at all how a boxing event effects interstate commerce.
There is no aggregate effect of the individual boxing commissions, we have seen in practice how the commissions have absolutely no effect of the boxing sport nationally. I have yet to see you explain how fighters fighting in a set location consittutes interstate commerce, especially when Lopez, the case you love so much, excludes considering indirect economic effect. There are no channels with regard to boxing since it opens solely in one location. So again help me out.