[zyqwert]

[ QUOTE ]

OK let's see...here is the text of the Commerce Clause:

""To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

The germane part says "to regulate Commerce...among the several states".

I think a reasonable interpretation would be that that includes: commerce, trade...not "any conceivable activity that somehow touches on interstate commerce directly or indirectly, closely or remotely."

The way I see it, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce itself...not anything and everything that may somehow be related to interstate commerce. That's how the clause reads, and that's how I think it should be read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your interpretation, it seems obvious to me (with no legal training) that's exactly what the words mean. I imagine the commerce clause giving the federals powers like the WTO has. Nobody expects the WTO to get involved with purely internal matters, and nobody should expect the same from the commerce clause either.

I think lawyers are handicapped when reading the constitution. When there is an incorrect supreme court decision that "makes stuff up" in the constitution, it becomes a precedent. Then a whole bunch of cases get resolved using that precedent. The unusual interpretation is taught in law school. Eventually the plain meaning is forgotten and wrong. Lawyers have to reconcile the plain meaning against the supreme court decisions, and they naturally consider the supreme court 'correct' since it predicts the outcome of litigation. It does give constitutional law a certain Alice in Wonderland quality though.