United States v. Nathan Wall (95-5007) and Donald Wall (95-5008)

Before United States v. Lopez, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), Congress’s commerce powers were unlimited.1 “[One] wonder[s] why anyone would make the mistake of calling it the Commerce Clause instead of the ‘Hey, you-can-do-whatever-you-feel-like Clause.’ ” Judge Alex Ko-zinski, Introduction to Volume Nineteen, 19 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 1, 5 (1995). In light of the text of the Commerce Clause2: “Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of homegrown wheat [in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942) ] is ‘commerce among the several…