5 What’s bad about this? This doesn’t demonstrate legal skills. The writer may have considerable legal skills; he may have exercised those legal skills in creating it. But they aren’t shown in what is written. There’s not a word about legal doctrine. A reader might infer, from what’s written, what the author thinks the legal doctrine is. But the work is left to the reader. The writer should do the work. I disagree with question 5 because I feel the situation is different, which is why the decisions in the Swift and Stafford cases seem to go against the other decisions of the Court during the time period.  The regulations under question in those cases were not dealing directly with the stockyards or slaughterhouses, but how the cattle got to the stockyards.  At the time the owners of the slaughterhouses were attempting to buy the stockyards, and thus directly control where the cattle were brought in from and how much they were then sold to the slaughterhouses (themselves) for.  Thus, the slaughterhouses were actually controlling the movement of the cattle from the time they left the farm they were raised on.  That is why I believe the Court upheld that law, not because of the nature of the business, but because the slaughterhouses were trying to control the stream of commerce.  Unless the pig slaughterhouses were attempting to control the entirety of the process, I do not believe the Court would have upheld the laws if they were only trying to regulate the slaughterhouses.