[Ken H]

I know that Justice Thomas is supposed to be one of the good guys. But with all due respect to Justice Thomas, why did he make such a statement? Is Yale indoctrinating law students with PC interpretations of the Constitution like Harvard is?

Why do you say that about Thomas? He's made exactly the same points in cases involving the Commerce Clause. He even cited the same passage in Gibbons vs Ogden in his Lopez concurrence =>

"[i]nspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State" were but a small part "of that immense mass of legislation . . . not surrendered to a general government." Id., at 203.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html

[Amendment10]

Unless I overlooked something, the language about the Commerce Clause in the post-FDR era United States v. Lopez opinion unsurprisingly doesn’t come close to agreeing with the clarifications that clause by Thomas Jefferson or the 19th century Supreme Court in Gibbons.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• "According to that dissent, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) established that Congress may control all local activities that "significantly affect interstate commerce [emphasis added]," post, at 1. And, "with the exception of one wrong turn subsequently corrected," this has been the "traditiona[l]" method of interpreting the Commerce Clause.” — United States v. Lopez, 1995.

Again, what am I overlooking?

[ConservingFreedom]

Amendment10, I think Thomas was stating the practical effect of the interpretive scheme rather than approving of it.