Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama
No shit. LOL. I find it funny you talk about Wiki when I posted the text directly from the majority opinion from the Supreme Court website. LOL.
All you contentions are held in the decision by Rehnquist, which basically says that there is a point where if you can use any activity and roundaboutly justify it as a means for the Fed to use the commerce clause without limitations. He detailed why the firearm incident was not a activity that he felt could be applied, and I have simply said under the same reasoning is the reason no sport could be regulated by the Fed under the Commerce clause.
My reading isn't false at all, unless you think the text of the decision is false, but that would be confusing since you are the one that brought it up, claiming it supported your decision, when the majority opinion clearly does not.
Again the major reason for Lopez decision was that it was the Court limiting the commerce clause by saying the activities taken were non-economic activities, that is the main step of the law, the majority opinion further details how the Court at the time moved to limit the commerce clause, morrison confirms as well as the Army Corp of Engineers case.
You seem to ignore that.
From Rehnquist's majority opinion regarding indirect economic effect with relation to commerce clause.
First, one of the things that you're wrong about here is the notion that Lopez curtailed the commerce clause. It didn't. It prevented it from expanding.
The power to regulate activities that "substantially affect" interstate commerce was not changed:
"First, we have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce. Examples include the regulation of intrastate coal mining; Hodel, supra,
intrastate extortionate credit transactions, Perez, supra,
restaurants utilizing substantial interstate supplies, McClung, supra,
inns and hotels catering to interstate guests, Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra,
and production *560
and consumption of homegrown wheat, Wickard v. Filburn,
317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). These examples are by no means exhaustive, but the pattern is clear. Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.
United States v. Lopez
, 514 U.S. 549, 559-60, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1630, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1995)
This is very simple: boxing matches affect interstate commerce. Therefore, if Congress wanted to regulate them, it could.