Vidi
CDZ prohibited
It is clear? I think lawyers on both sides of the argument will concede that it is, in fact, not clear at all. While liberal blogs and SCOTUS commentators run to Lopez among many other basic commerce clause cases to justify forcing someone in to commerce, Lopez speaks of nothing with respect to the current argument. Lopez was a cheap and desperate attempt by the government to use the commerce clause to regulate individual carrying of guns. Sense the guns were not interstate commerce, nor did they effect interstate commerce, nor did they relate to interstate commerce as the government argued, the Government lost. Lopez has absolutely nothing to do with whether the government can force you in to commerce and the only limitation it placed on the commerce clause was that it had to be commerce. Which is not really a limitation at all unless you’re a liberal and want to deem everything commerce, even though everything obviously isn't commerce, so you can regulate it through a back door congressional power that does not exist.
Calling non commerce what it is, "not commerce," is hardly a limitation. It just means that the commerce clause only relates to commerce which is not only a "no f-ing duh” statement but it also shows to the lengths that liberals will go through to evoke irrelevant clauses to make their case.
Does Congress have the power to pass laws that protect one person from another person? Loss of life or abuse or fraud, specifically.
Absolutely, however, not via life, abuse, or fraud, but only through the specifically enumerated powers stated. The government is not allowed to combat loss of life, abuse, or fraud, through abuse and fraud. Invoking nonexistent authority is abuse and fraud.
Then, if an industry, comprised of corporate "persons" is taking away life, abusing or frauding natural "persons", isn't it within the governments power ( and possibly even their function ) to step in?
And if so, to what extent should they step in if "within Constitutional bounds" will not or cannot protect the natural "persons"?
PS I know you're wicked smart and see where I am heading with this.