Originally Posted by Slothrop
The court of today would basically be obligated, due to the doctrine of stare decisis, to uphold the regulation. If you knew anything about the law (which you obviously don't) you'd understand this. If Congress attempted to regulate boxing under the Commerce Clause, it would not be trying to expand its Commerce Clause power. It's settled law, based on very longstanding precedent, that activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce are subject to Congress's Commerce Clause power.
You may not like that, and it's obvious that you don't understand how it works, but this is simply fact. And you're simply wrong.
No court is bound by anything they don't want to be bound by. If that was the case Citizen United wouldn't have been decided the way it was. LOL.
If you knew anything about what you were talking about you would know that. You would know the main talent of constitutional lawyers is tailoring their argment to fit the justices in play on the bench.
There is no such thing as settled law, so your talk of any Constitutional setting in practice as settled and concrete is ridiculous on its face.
I don't think the point could be made any clearer in reality than the contrieved decision the Court made with regard to Nationalized Romneycare/Obamacare.
Like I said though, you are going to believe what you want, and I'm going to believe what I believe.
Personally I don't see why people would want one corrupt body that no one could get away from over 50 smaller bodies that are forced to compete against each other.