View Single Post
Old 11-29-2012, 11:41 PM   #42
Slothrop
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The Zone
Posts: 5,770
vCash: 1195
Default Re: Should the US federal government step in and regulate boxing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama View Post
Using that broad an argument is what lead the the majority decision in Lopez sloth.

Rehnquist, with relation to the activities section


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.
This is empty nonsense and clearly demonstrates you don't understand how case law works. Wikipedia is not a law degree.

Activities that impact interstate commerce have been regulated under the commerce clause for a long, long time. It's stare decisis. Lopez did not overturn previous cases. It simply prevented the commerce clause power from being expanded.

Understand this: the reason the law in Lopez was declared unconstitutional was because carrying a gun in a school zone is not an activity that substantially impacts interstate commerce. Your reading of Lopez is entirely false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama View Post
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.
This barely makes sense, but even interpreted charitably to be a meaningful English sentence, it's still laughably wrong.

Here's some of the actual language from the case which explains why the law was not a proper exercise of the commerce clause:

"Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms.3 Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.


United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1631, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995)



Again, the reason that the law in Lopez was not a valid exercise of the commerce clause was because the activity was so remote from interstate commerce. Boxing matches are not remote. They directly impact commerce, as stated above. You're very, very wrong. Sorry.
Slothrop is offline  Top
Reply With Quote