Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of US v Lopez. The most egregious use I found of the commerce clause was Wickard v Filburn. It was a depression era ruling that said the federal government had the right to prevent a farmer on growing food on his own land to feed his livestock in opposition to a law meant to 'stabilize wheat prices' by having farmers not grow food. Ever since then I was no a fan of commerce clause. Would something like this be possible today or did US v Lopez make this impossible?
> Conversely, there is no constitutional right to /not/ get a vaccine
Doesn't it need to be framed as the government having the right to apply a medical treatment to me against my will?
I have a constitutional right to bare arms but presumably the federal government can decry that I do not have the right in certain places. Or is that not an affirmative right.
[EDIT] It appears that is what US v Lopez is about (federal restriction of guns near schools)