Replies

Here's what Justice Clarence Thomas had to say about the Commerce Clause in The United States vs Lopez:

Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8. 3 [ UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995) , 7]

Indeed, if a "substantial effects" test can be appended to the Commerce Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government? There is no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment.

Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that "substantially affect" the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures, and so on. In that case, the clauses of 8 all mutually overlap, something we can assume the Founding Fathers never intended.

Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the "substantial effects" test should be reexamined.

"Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce."

This is really misleading and an intentional misstatement.

Congress is given the power to regulate "commerce among the several states". First, Congress must choose to regulate an activity. Second, they must have the backing of the voters. Third, that regulation must pass both houses and be signed by the President. Fourth, if challenged, that legislation must survive federal appeals court scrutiny.

Now, if and only if there exists some activity that substantially affects (as determined by Justice Thomas and his colleagues) that which is being regulated, THEN Congress may also regulate that activity.

Let me ask you, Ken H. What would you have Congress do? What Is Clarence Thomas proposing as his solution? Are we supposed to allow this "substantial effect" activity to undermine Congress' efforts at regulation? Is that what you're suggesting?