[inquest]

Today, due to modern communications and transportation, commerce no longer can be easily distinguished between interstate and intrastate aspects.

Example of what you mean by this? And regardless, if modern conditions make it impossible to govern to the satisfaction of the people while adhering to the Constitution, there's an amendment process. But to simply say that following the stated words of the Constitution is too inconvenient, therefore we'll just ignore them, is to disregard the whole point of having a Constitution.

When anything and everything is or can be in interstate commerce, how do draw factually valid distinctions between interstate and intrastate commerce?

Anything and everything? I go down to the local gun shop and buy a gun. Not insterstate commerce. Not in 1788. Not in 2005.

[Rockingham]

A telephone call, email, or Internet web page may go through a single state or a dozen states. Without expert investigation and access to restricted and ephemeral information, it is impossible to tell.

In your view of the commerce clause, could a state tax or regulate the charges and terms of intrastate only telephone calls, emails, and web postings? How could one hope to tell if such a law was being adhered to when there are billions or trillions of telephone calls, web pages, emails, and similar communications a year?

Similar problems develop with almost any item or service in commerce today. Unless there is a uniform national standard, interstate commerce in it is burdened and beset with operational complications that make trade in it impossible or much more expensive.

Consequently, the trend of modern business is to prefer one national standard and authority instead of fifty or more different ones. The public benefits because goods and services cost less and are of higher quality and more available. Similarly, states benefit because their economies are larger and more robust.

As for your gun, it was almost certainly manufactured out of state. Hence, the gun itself is within the definition of interstate commerce and would be under a strict sense of the commerce clause; and the manufacturer likely wants the federal government to exercise the commerce clause power to block a large class of gun liability tort claims.

Take that gun near a school though, and I will agree that is not a matter for the federal commerce clause because it falls within the traditional concept of state and local police powers.

[antaresequity]

But to simply say that following the stated words of the Constitution is too inconvenient, therefore we'll just ignore them, is to disregard the whole point of having a Constitution.

Not to mention it renders the debate moot.

Whats the point of having a debate about the intent of the writers of a docuement, when the very words of the document are 'disregarded'....or am I missing somthing?