Originally Posted by DZcarry
It is the position of the US, and has been under Republican and Democratic administrations, that giving aid to poorer, unstable governments is essential to the defense of the US under the premise that any unstable nation poses a threat to the US as a sovereign nation.
I am aware of that interpretation, by both the Congress and the Court.
Just as I am aware that both interpret that once an item moves in interstate commerce, it is always in commerce (or as per Raich,
any economic impact whatsoever, is commerce).
While I don't have to agree with these interpretations, I do have to abide by them.
It was I who moved the posts. They were relevant to this thread.
I happen to agree with you on this, but I also know that despite what the Court says now, it is still a precedent that they can fall back upon.