From: Bill Lucy 

In article , glb{at}gencog.com says...
> Change implemented in any other matter is not constitutionally derived from
> the consent of the governed as is required by our founding documents, and is
> therefore government deriving its powers by fiat and dictatorship versus the
> consent of the governed.

That's an interesting thought, Gary, though the fact that "consent of
the governed" isn't part of the Constitution renders it rather moot.
One finds it in the Declaration of Independence, but that's a revolutionary
document.

Rather than focus on the "foreign laws" strawman, I'll make this point
-- the interpretation of the Commerce Clause has evolved since the
beginning of the republic. In its present guise, the FF wouldn't recognize
it, because "commerce" has been redefined to encompass pretty
much any movement (tangible and intangible) occurring in this country. The
fact is that it isn't just the Supreme Court that has caused that evolution
-- Congress and the President (the "global", not just the
current) are even more responsible.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5