Replies

"Rhenquist said the second one could."

He was referring to something different. Child Labor Laws would be an example. There, the channels are not being regulated, nor the commerce itself. But the fact that children are being used to manufacture the commerce that ships interstate, provides Congress with the nexus and the authority to regulate.

I really don't want to go off on a tangent here. I don't see any connection to guns.

"Are you saying the first category (channels of commerce) can't reach intrastate activity?"

Well, since those are interstate channels of commerce, I'd have to say no.

But, if there is some nexus between the intrastate and interstate channels, where one is dependent upon the other, then yes. The Shreveport Rate Cases come to mind.

But the fact that children are being used to manufacture the commerce that ships interstate, provides Congress with the nexus and the authority to regulate.

Is there really any requirement for the commerce being manufactured (putting aside the obvious problems with the idea of "manufacturing commerce") to actually be shipped interstate for Congress to assume authority to regulate it?

I think what Rhenquist was saying could apply to aviation.

But, if there is some nexus between the intrastate and interstate channels, where one is dependent upon the other, then yes.

Such a connection doesn't exist with aviation? Are there court cases in which the feds have relied upon substantial indirect effects and aggregation to assert commerce power over aviation?