The Interestate Commerce Clause is in the U. S. Constititution, and even the Indian Tribes are affected. It also extends to purchases that even do not get made, so it would easily be said to apply to purchase that do get made.
Many would say so.
""But in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the commerce clause extends to local intrastate activities which affect interstate commerce, even if the activities arent commerce; and further, Congress has power to regulate prices of commodities and the practices which affect such prices!'"
"'Thus, if you have tomato plants in your back yard for use solely in your own kitchen, you are affecting interstate commerce and are subject to regulation by Congress. The courts reasoning is this: If you werent growing tomatoes in your back yard, youd be buying them on the market. If you were buying them on the market, some of what you bought might come from another State. So! By not buying them on the market, you are affecting interstate commerce because you didnt buy something you otherwise would have bought. See? And we have to stand up when these people walk into a room!'"
(Canadian Free Press)
Even the act of growing the tomato plants in the backyard creates an involuntary entry into the the stream of commerce, as one Low Court now wants to say it, in the matter of the Constitutionality of Health Care: And by definition. The person growing plants in the backyard has no interest in making a purchase at all. That person is nevertheless an entrant into the market.
The Low Court that ruled The Affordable Health Care Act, aka the "The Job-Killing Bill That Has To Be Destroyed In Order To Promote the Interests of the Tiny Minority TeaBerserkers, of the Minority GOP:" All of that(?), Unconstitutional. . . . ; mainly attacked the arithmetic of the law which sets up minimum standards on which to base actuarial assumptions. The concept of the individual was not included. The arithmetic Minimums Coverage assumptions were what was called unconstitutional(?).
Probablities, data, and statistics in fact do cross state lines. The courts have already ruled in the individual matter of whether or an involuntary entry into the marketplace is included. It is, even if it doesn't quite happen that way(?)!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Interstate Commerce Clause send many into stream of marketplaces, hook, line, and sinker, and Ready or Not!)
Many would say so.
""But in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the commerce clause extends to local intrastate activities which affect interstate commerce, even if the activities arent commerce; and further, Congress has power to regulate prices of commodities and the practices which affect such prices!'"
"'Thus, if you have tomato plants in your back yard for use solely in your own kitchen, you are affecting interstate commerce and are subject to regulation by Congress. The courts reasoning is this: If you werent growing tomatoes in your back yard, youd be buying them on the market. If you were buying them on the market, some of what you bought might come from another State. So! By not buying them on the market, you are affecting interstate commerce because you didnt buy something you otherwise would have bought. See? And we have to stand up when these people walk into a room!'"
(Canadian Free Press)
Even the act of growing the tomato plants in the backyard creates an involuntary entry into the the stream of commerce, as one Low Court now wants to say it, in the matter of the Constitutionality of Health Care: And by definition. The person growing plants in the backyard has no interest in making a purchase at all. That person is nevertheless an entrant into the market.
The Low Court that ruled The Affordable Health Care Act, aka the "The Job-Killing Bill That Has To Be Destroyed In Order To Promote the Interests of the Tiny Minority TeaBerserkers, of the Minority GOP:" All of that(?), Unconstitutional. . . . ; mainly attacked the arithmetic of the law which sets up minimum standards on which to base actuarial assumptions. The concept of the individual was not included. The arithmetic Minimums Coverage assumptions were what was called unconstitutional(?).
Probablities, data, and statistics in fact do cross state lines. The courts have already ruled in the individual matter of whether or an involuntary entry into the marketplace is included. It is, even if it doesn't quite happen that way(?)!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Interstate Commerce Clause send many into stream of marketplaces, hook, line, and sinker, and Ready or Not!)