US v Lopez did NOT invalidate gun-free school zones.
Correct. Because it was not germane to the point I was making, I was not as precise as I could have been, or as I have been in previous threads.
The statute as originally passed was invalidated. The current statute, as amended, has not yet been ruled on by SCOTUS. For more discussion, see my posts in:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357687
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354040
Congress can create its own power simply by pointing to something and saying it affects interstate commerce.
I don't agree (and suspect SCOTUS doesn't either, at least in that formulation). That is the unanswered question resulting from the amendment of the statute that was the subject of the Lopez decision. I think that, given the history of that particular statute and the court's decision, the court will say no, Congress can NOT create its own power simply by pointing to something and saying it affects interstate commerce. But, in the context of other statutes, I am not so confident. Therefore, it would matter which case gets to the SCOTUS first.
Antipitas, I think that the words "could affect" convey what you say but appreciate the clarification.
the basis of the laws enacted in Montana and Tennessee. Here they declare that materials moving into the State, cease to be in commerce, if they never leave the State. The States go further, they claim that a bar of steel, changed in character, do not become "wards" of federal power, unless actually placed in interstate commerce.
That is the 10th amendment assertion.
I don't think state legislatures have the power to declare what constitutes interstate commerce. That is a judicial function. The consitution does not reserve to the states the power to declare what the power of the federal government is. If the federal government does not have power, then that power is reserved to the states. The power to regulate interstate commerce, however, is in fact granted to the federal government.
However wrongly Wickard might have been decided in terms of individual production and consumption of wheat, quite clearly a substantial amount of intrastate commerce in 50 states can affect interstate commerce. So even without Wickard, and without Raich, a good argument could be made that Congress can regulate intrastate manufacture and trading of a product that is a substitute for a product that is traded in interstate commerce.
Skeezix, if Congress passes a law, the president (or the executive branch) enforces it, and the courts says it's constitutional, then in a democracy, we have to obey it. There is only one form of government in which each individual has the power to decide for himself what laws do and don't apply: anarchy.