Quote:
Current interpretation seems to be that anything that is EVER involved in interstate commerce is FOREVER in interstate commerce and anything that MIGHT have been in interstate commerce if it hadn't NOT been "effects" interstate commerce so it is ALSO covered by the Commerce Clause.
That's an argument that is so preposterous that it should be laughable... but instead it's "the law of the land".
|
It's far worse than that. In Wickard v. Filburn, SCOTUS held that a good which never entered the commerce stream, but could, is subject to commerce clause regulation. Roscoe Filburn (gotta love the name) was a wheat farmer who, during WWII, grew more than his "share" and was forced not only to destroy the excess but to pay a fine as well, even though not one grain of wheat ever crossed a state line. In fact, the excess never entered the stream of commerce - it was all consumed by Filburn and his family. I don't doubt that if a case presented itself, the good itself could be entirely hypothetical.
In Gonzalez v. Raich, the SCOTUS used similar logic to rule that Congress constitutionally acted within the scope of the commerce clause by essentially banning the possession of marijuana (even though Raich didn't sell so much as a leaf across state lines).
The only conclusion I can draw is that SCOTUS is saying that government interest alone is enough to cross the commerce clause threshold with respect to any economic transaction - and that should frighten the bejeezus out of all of us.
==============
p.s. Carter v. Carter Coal Co. is an interesting read for those of you arguing over the point of a product's entry into the interstate commerce stream. It will no doubt be cited if any of these locally made/sold firearms laws comes up.