[robertpaulsen]

"I'd like to know exactly what sort of act or product does not, in some tortuous way, effect interstat commerce..."

Probably everything does. But that's beside the point.

What's at issue are those intrastate acts or products that a) substantially affect the interstate commerce that Congress b) is currently regulating.

Congress is controlling these intrastate acts or products using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used standalone -- it must be used in conjunction with another power.

The Necessary and Proper Clause (listed at the end of Congress' other powers) gives Congress the power to write laws that are both necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Without this, Congress would not be able to stop states or individuals from undermining and subverting their interstate efforts.

[tacticalogic]

What's at issue are those intrastate acts or products that a) substantially affect the interstate commerce that Congress b) is currently regulating.

Congress is controlling these intrastate acts or products using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used standalone -- it must be used in conjunction with another power.

The Necessary and Proper Clause (listed at the end of Congress' other powers) gives Congress the power to write laws that are both necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Without this, Congress would not be able to stop states or individuals from undermining and subverting their interstate efforts.

Except it's all defined so subjectively that it's cumulatively meaningless. Bob Stewart couldn't build enough rifles to have a "substantial effect" on the interstate commerce in firearms. You've said it yourself - it's a tactic, not an objective.

[Lazamataz]

"I'd like to know exactly what sort of act or product does not, in some tortuous way, effect interstat commerce..."

Probably everything does.

And thusly, the FedGuv can now regulate and interfere with and dictate anything whatsoever.

And you're cool with that.

Isn't there a nice Soviet-Union-type country you could go to so you could pursue your Central Planning dreams without whining from freedom lovers like me?

[mysterio]

Pot that is grown at home and is not sold is not interstate commerce.

[mugs99]

What's at issue are those intrastate acts or products that a) substantially affect the interstate commerce that Congress b) is currently regulating.

ROFL!
Congress does not rgulate the interstate commerce of marijuana. Marijuana is illegal. The Commerce Clause decision in the Raich case protects violent drug gangs, not a legal marijuana market.
.

[ctdonath2]

"substantially" is being interpreted as meaning "at all in the slightest conceivable degree".