|
tyme, no one seriously argues the general welfare clause as the foundation of constitutional authorization - especially when the commerce clause has been expanded so exponentially. Basically, per Wickard v. Filburn, even non-economic activities are covered under this provision - essentially, any good, product or service that one day MIGHT have any sort of effect (the word substantial is used, but that is so mealy-mouthed as to be meaningless) upon interstate commerce is considered regulatable (if that's a word) by Congress.
Essentially, if the feebs take an interest in an activity, that's enough for commerce clause enablement to allow Congress to regulate/restrict/prohibit it, absent protection under other constitutional provisions.
|