[BillCA]

The problem with the commerce clause is that it can be construed to permit argument ad absurdum to control anything produced.

I had a most enlightening conversation one evening, over dinner, with a lawyer about this. He'd worked on a few cases involving the commerce clause.

In essence, Congress can justify anything it wants via the commerce clause if the courts do not limit the reach of their arguments.

In one case, the Feds argued for control based on the fact that one supplier of California lumber bought cut lumber from a California mill that purchases saws and machines from other states and uses electricity produced in other states.

If you break down anything far enough, it becomes something made in another state. Until the courts wake up and limit the reach of such arguments, the Feds can control just about any product made or method of transportation to get it to market.

Feds will argue that they can regulate your home-grown vegetable garden, even if you irrigate with stored rainwater, use garden tools made from trees on your own land and use locally produced seed stock. How? They'll argue that doing so reduces federal tax revenues by reducing your (and your neighbors') demand for the veggies and that reduces the amount of fuel taxes, income taxes for farm workers who buy other interstate products, etc. :barf:

The solution is easy and straightforward. Limit the arguments to a direct, measurable and substatantive affect on commerce. Plus removing the argument that a "local state product" will reduce demand for out-of-state products based simply on the principle that people are free to make their choices of which products to buy for any reason.