[Darth Reardon]

Perhaps I should have mentioned that the courts have NEVER before found that NOT buying something affects interstate commerce.

I'm no legal expert, so maybe this doesn't (quite) count, but it's pretty darn close. I read Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society recently, wherein he describes abuse of the Commerce Clause including an example where the court ruled that a guy growing his own wheat for his own consumption decreased the demand for wheat on the open market, hence the feds had the authority to regulate his production.

quoted here

[Darth Reardon]

Dude, read the article, THEN comment.

[mrreaganaut]

Yeah, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is the case. It blew the top of my head off in law school. I think it might actually anger me more than Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Roe at least dealt with whether it might be unjust for a woman (perhaps a rape victim) to be forced to carry a baby; the Court was trying for justice, however misguidedly. Wickard is just naked power, denying justice.