[Amendment10]

"I’m sure it would end up in the Supreme Court, as falling under the interstate commerce clause, because more often than not, meat butchered in Texas does not stay in Texas."

Consider that not only has the Supreme Court clarified that the states have never expressly constitutional delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate agricultural production regardless of the Commerce Clause, but also have a look at the Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, Clause 2.

"Article I, Section 10, Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws [emphasis added]: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."

So not only is the Constitution's only instance of the word “inspection” used in conjunction with the states, not the feds, but consider the following.

Using agriculture as an example, Justice Joseph Story used this rhetorical question to emphasize distinctions between commerce and other things in his Commentaries on the Constitution.

"Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture [emphasis added]?"—Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833.

Corrections, insights welcome.

[ro_dreaming]

I never thought the courts would agree it is legal for the government to “fine” me for not engaging in commerce, but with Obama-care, they did.