As Zukiphile mentioned the Raisch case, it should also be mentioned that this case actually broadened the commerce clause powers. It now includes any economic activity that might affect interstate commerce, even if such an effect was incidental to actual activity. Because of this case, the effects no longer have to be substantial, just tangential.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion.
To further confuse the issues, the common sense notion that once I buy a thing (and therefore own it), that thing is no longer in commerce. In other words, buying an item removes the item from any and all commercial activity.
Not So! say our courts. Once in commerce, always in commerce, hence the application of such laws as the GFSZA, to "things" that the common man thinks are his own property and under his sole control.
|