[tacticalogic]

Yet there is a correspondence between Gibbons v. Ogden and the New Deal commerce clause cases. Rend your garments over Wickard and Raich if you must, but you ought to include a curse against Gibbons v. Ogden from 1824 as well. And, I submit, you ought to recognize that the case for a restrictive view of the commerce clause is not as persuasive as it might be without Gibbons v. Ogden.

All I need to know is that by avaiable historical documentation on the original intent of the Commerce CLause what we've got now is dead-nuts wrong.

Your explanations, excuses, and desire to have a commerce clause that's just elastic enough to get you what you want without having to do a lot of work for it aren't doing a damn thing to fix it, so I'm not particularly interested in them.

Excuse me if that sounds harsh, but the current situation in Washington has proven that there cannot be any mushy middle ground. If you give them any leeway at all they will take everything.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want the federal government to have the authority to prohibit personal growing and posession of marijuana, then you need to get yourself an amendment. You can get in line behind the people that want the federal government control health care.

[Rockingham]

Your reading of the historical and legal record is selective and tendentious. I have no desire to make the commerce clause into one thing or another. I do see considerable misinformation about the commerce clause, mostly cast about by non lawyers who see a restrictive view as the magic answer to their pet concern.

Obamacare may fail due to the limitation on the commerce clause stated in Gonzales v. Lopez.