[tacticalogic]

That may be an excuse Paul claims to hide behind, but what is the result of a NO vote?

If it's an abuse of the Commerce Clause, then Congress doesn't have any business doing it. The result of a NO vote is to help prevent it.

[MrB]

Back during the “New Deal” days, one of FDR’s judges made the statement that

a man growing his own wheat, on his own land, for his own use,
was subject to federal regulation through the interstate commerce clause because if he wasn’t growing it himself, he would have to engage in interstate commerce to obtain it.

The left uses this “logic” to justify every unconstitutional policy. As a matter of fact, you would be hard pressed to find a leftist policy that IS Constitutional, in the original intent.

[mnehring]

The problem is abuses of the commerce clause in relation to commission of crimes across State lines is that it is up to a matter of interpretation as to what crosses the line in abusing the commerce clause. I’ve read papers by legal writers on this issue where they contradict themselves 3-4 times as to what constitutes a violation or ‘stepping into’ commerce as an excuse for law enforcement.

The fact is that if a crime occurs across State lines, by today’s laws, it is a federal crime. If you don’t like the interstate justification for federal involvement, go after the root law. Don’t just use it as an excuse to hide behind.