Is that a problem if it does? Doesn't seem to be, since Congress is not regulating the interstate commerce of baked goods.
The ONLY time Congress can go into a state and regulate what's going on is if that activity "substantially effects" what Congress is trying to do under their constitutionally assigned powers. And even then, what Congress does IN the states is limited to legislation that is only necessary and proper for them to execute those constitutionally assigned powers. If that doesn't make sense, then you're being intentionally stubborn.
Another "intentionally stubborn" begging of the question by paulsen.
Congress has no 'assigned power' to "go into a state" and "regulate whats going on".
Congress can only regulate commerce "among the several states", not within them.
And even then, what Congress does IN the states is limited to legislation that is only necessary and proper for them to execute those constitutionally assigned powers.
Considering that Congress itself decides what is "proper", this is no limit at all..
If that doesn't make sense, then you're being intentionally stubborn.
Paulsen, from a constitutional standpoint, nothing you say makes any sense.
-- Why would the framers limit the powers of Congress throughout the document, but leave a gaping hole allowing unlimited commerce power?