 |
|
|
|
|
 | No, I think (which is why I still prefer my own answer to question 5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| To take either of these positions, we have to ignore or explain away the language of the cases (either in full or the tiny excerpts in the casebook), which particularly in Stafford (casebook) but also in Swift & Co. (see the full opinion) emphasizes that the regulated activity is in the middle of the current, that CATTS occurs both before and after the activity regulated. The positions argued here make what happens after the regulated activity irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stafford: the “stockyards are but a throat through which the current flows, and the transactions which occur therein [in Chicago, Illinois] are only incident to this current from West [e.g. Wyoming, Texas] to East [New York, Boston], and from one State to another. Such transactions cannot be separated from the movement to which they contribute and necessarily take on its character [presumably its character as CATSS].”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
;){kind=small}
