[OneWingedShark]

>> Wickard v. Fillburn has, since 1942, declared that the intrastate commerce impacts interstate commerce and thereby allows Congressional regulation thereof.
>
> Wickard has no application here. There is no impact to an interstate market by virtue of an individual's movement within a State.

Tell that to GONZALES v. RAICH, which said: even if there is no interstate market, the federal government can still regulate intrastate commerce because if there was a market, they could regulate that.

Despite the logical nullity, this is the reasoning that they use.

[beelzepug]

Even if I have no money I can still have a Bentley convertible because if I DID have money, I could have one.

[Carry_Okie]

Tell that to GONZALES v. RAICH, which said: even if there is no interstate market, the federal government can still regulate intrastate commerce because if there was a market, they could regulate that.

There is no possibility of an interstate market on a commuter train that doesn't go anywhere close to a state line.

Despite the logical nullity, this is the reasoning that they use.

I have long dispensed with the bogus rationales of the black robes as regards the plain interpretation of constitutionality.