[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?

[Ken H]

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.

"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?

_________________________________________________________________

You seem to be overlooking the fact that Thomas was arguing against the dissent. He presented their arguments for an expansive view of Gibbons, then he went on to rebut it. Right?