[phoenix0468]

I am not disagreeing that that is the only reason he stated in his letter. I am simply saying that there "may have been", and still are, more reasons for such regulation. If the feds regulate interstate commerce, than conflicts in trade between states is obviously minimized. Also, since any legislation on that level would have to be passed by representatives of the States, than it makes it not only efficient but a valid form of regulation.

[tacticalogic]

Also, since any legislation on that level would have to be passed by representatives of the States, than it makes it not only efficient but a valid form of regulation.

What was "intended" be damned. I rest my case.

[tacticalogic]

"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Justice Clarence Thomas

Pay attention, or kiss the Republic goodbye.