[supercat]

Correct. Unless they have a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently (and constitutionally) regulating. Which, oops, they all do.

Perhaps you could help me out there. Compare the U.S. Constitution with an alternate version in which I.8 simply reads:

Congress shall have the power to pass any and all such laws as it sees fit, except for such laws as would be expressly forbidden by this Constitution.

Can you identify for me any law that Congress might pass under the latter Constitution which could not--possibly with some rewording but no functional change--be passed under the former (present) one? If they are not functionally identical, there should be at least one such proposable piece of legislation. And if they are functionally identical, why do you suppose Madison wasted all that verbiage on I.8?

[robertpaulsen]

"Compare the U.S. Constitution with an alternate version in which I.8 simply reads:"

Why should I? That was never the intent. Under that version, the USSC never could have overturned Lopez and Morrison, now could they?

How about: "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper to effect such regulation."

Golly. So radical, huh?