[robertpaulsen]

"The commerce power you describe cannot be the same commerce power that John Marshall writes about."

One and the same. Oh, and thank you for pointing out that Marshall does extend congressional power to regulate intrastate commerce which "affects other States". I often use that very same phrase to make that point.

As early as 1824, therefore, in John Marshall's court, we see that a) commerce between the states may be prohibited and b) commerce within a state that affects other states may be regulated. And here you said you looked and couldn't find anything. You kidder, you.

[tacticalogic]

In that same case he also said: "It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary."

The commerce power you describe recognizes no such limits. Under your interpretation commerce "which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States" does not exist. Your idea of "the power to regulate commerce" is not the same as Marshall's, because clearly your idea of commerce is not the same as his.

[tacticalogic]

As early as 1824, therefore, in John Marshall's court, we see that a) commerce between the states may be prohibited

Where does this establish that commerce between the states may be prohibited? What commerce was prohibited in this case?

[tacticalogic]

And here you said you looked and couldn't find anything. You kidder, you.

And the greeat RobertPaulsen, who's "not here to play gotcha games" plays his last lame "gotcha" as he runs away.