[robertpaulsen]

"What I didn't see there is any of this "substantial effects" BS."

You did see that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states, right? And you did see that Congress has the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the Commerce Clause power, right?

Well, I think we can conclude that if some activity interferes with Congress executing their Commerce Clause power, they can legislate on that. Gee, I hope so.

And in order to limit Congress, that activity can't be anything at all -- it must be such that it substantially interferes with Congress' ability.

But to you that's no good because it's not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Kind of a juvenile attitude, isn't it?

[tacticalogic]

And in order to limit Congress, that activity can't be anything at all -- it must be such that it substantially interferes with Congress' ability.

Is that what "substantial effects" means? Anything that "substantially affects" Congress' ability to do whatever it wants? That seems to be the gist of your argument.

[tacticalogic]

But to you that's no good because it's not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Kind of a juvenile attitude, isn't it?

Less so than the idea that there are no "rights" beyond those explicitly listed in the BOR. I'll believe you're serious when you quit relying on that idea.