[thoughtomator]

If the term "interstate commerce" is construed broadly enough to include infanticide, then what one is really saying is that there is no limit whatsoever to the definition of "interstate commerce" and therefore to the power of the federal government.

I think "interstate commerce" means exactly that - interstate commerce, not activity that takes place entirely within the confines of a single state.

If one can rationalize murder to be "interstate commerce", what is there that couldn't be defined as commerce? It would be no less incoherent to say that eating and breathing are interstate commerce and that the government should have the power to tell the states exactly how people may eat and breathe.

[m1-lightning]

I think "interstate commerce" means exactly that - interstate commerce, not activity that takes place entirely within the confines of a single state.

See, now that's where I question it also. I do believe the states have power over commerce in their own state but when it comes to leaving your state to go to another state where that good or service is not banned, then what's the point of the original state even banning it? Fireworks is an example I use in Illinois. The law in Illinois prohibits the sale of fireworks though they end up being bought in Indiana and used in Illinois. The state law intended to stop private fireworks usage is really a plate of jello. Same goes for any state ban on abortion. If your state bans it, just come to Illinois, we'll hook ya up. Your state won't let you get married as a gay couple? Just go to Massachusettes and they'll hook ya up. In the manner you argue for, the FDA could only regulate food LEAVING the state and couldn't regulate food being sold in the same state is was produced. If we passed a constitutional amendment for every area of commerce, it would really soil it worse than simply allowing the federal government to regulate commerce across the states through the CFR.