[nonsporting]

From Scalia's comments: "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

But how can "banning" commerce be "regulating" commerce? Heck, Amendment XVIII(18) was considered necessary to "prohibit the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors."

Apparently this present Court feels this amendment(18) was unnecessary and that Amendment XXI (21), which repealed XVIII, was also unnecessary.

I'm waiting to hear that "saving money" is a violation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Not spending my money has one tremendous effect on both intrastate and interstate commerce.

[TBP]

Amendment XVIII(18) was considered necessary to "prohibit the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors."

Very good point. I don't agree with Prohibition, but I will give them credit for going about it the correct way.

I'm waiting to hear that "saving money" is a violation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Not spending my money has one tremendous effect on both intrastate and interstate commerce.

Also, the fact that a banking corporation, likely interstate, uses it for loans and other things (which is how they get the money to pay you interest) has a significant effect on interstate commerce.