Originally Posted by Slothrop
Here, you must not have read this part:
"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."
Using that broad an argument is what lead the the majority decision in Lopez sloth.
Rehnquist, with relation to the activities section
These are not precise formulations, and in the nature of things they cannot be. But we think they point the way to a correct decision of this case. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce.
To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 8. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do.
The question will always come down to who is on the Court, that said I see the same problems Rehnquist and the court had with saying a firearm was an action to be regulated under the Court that I see with boxing, football, baseball, hockey, or any other sport.
Simply is no real case to say a boxing match in nevada affects a boxing match in NY or FL. Simply isn't the nature of the business.
Like I said before, Lopez itself says indirect economic action is not grounds for permitting the commerce clause, so your talks of money from hotels and other businesses is irrelevant.