Originally Posted by Slothrop
What in God's name are you trying to support here?
You don't have a clue what this case actually holds.
This is embarrassing for you.
Here, don't just take my word for it. Turns out the Supreme Court has actually held that boxing is of an interstate character:
There would seem to be little doubt that a federal regulatory regime to oversee the professional boxing industry would fit quite comfortably under the broad reach of the Commerce Clause.58 The interstate character of the industry has been recognized by the Supreme Court in connection with anti-trust regulation.59 For purposes of Sherman Act applicability, the Court held that “the promotion of professional championship boxing contests on a multistate basis, coupled with the sale of rights to televise, broadcast, and film the contests for interstate transmission” constitutes interstate commerce.60 It would be crucial, therefore, to the success of federal regulation that federally promulgated uniform health and safety standards and other initiatives reach local industry activities where arguably the risk of injury is greatest. Again, expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence over the years, which has allowed Congressional mandates to bind local incidents of interstate *45 commerce, would seem adequate for the task.61
Peter E. Millspaugh, The Federal Regulation of Professional Boxing: Will Congress Answer the Bell?
, 19 Seton Hall Legis. J. 33, 44-45 (1994)
Once again, you're dead wrong.
Nice story, but the court who made that ruling was not the Court that decided Lopez and not the court of today.
If you knew Constitutional law, you would understand that the validity of any law rests on the court.
I have a hard time seeing
Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas siding with your argument of the commerce clause and why boxing would be allowed to regulated by the Fed, away from the states.
I see why the promotors would want it, less payouts to negotiate to bogus government cronies.