TNHarley
Diamond Member
- Sep 27, 2012
- 94,093
- 56,472
- 2,605
- Thread starter
- #101
No, im not confused. I am arguing it against it. Can you read?That's like a common label you're using. Is that your new word of the day? Regressive?what a regressive thing to sayYou need a link for the Commerce Clause?link?The govt has the authority to regulate roadways. Nice try
Dumbass they also have the authority to regulate businesses.
Nice dodge btw, pussycat.
BTW, caribou is pwning you here, bro.
The commerce clause mentions local business activities that dont involve more than one state? Link?
You seem to be confused that we operate under the rule of law here in this country. We don't. It's just an illusion. They can do any fucking thing they want. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia
People that rape definitions of words are part of that reason. Like raping the intent of the commerce clause and the meaning of "general welfare"