> First, AEI is not a partisan think-tank. They're ideologically conservative, but they are non-partisan... If anything, the current interpretation of the Comme

> First, AEI is not a partisan think-tank. They're ideologically conservative, but they are non-partisan... If anything, the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the antithesis of conservative ideology And yet, AEI is advocating for the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause because it empowers deregulation. You can bet your last horse that they'd be making the opposite argument and rambling about King George and unelected regulators if Democrats controlled the federal government. I can't help but feel that you've reinforced awinder's point... AEI reasons backwards from what it wants on a case-by-case basis to justify its policy preferences, which change depending on which party is in power. If that's not the definition of partisan, then your definition of partisanship is broken. > If anything, they're smart, by framing a Republican-sponsored policy within the context of case law that Democrats have consistently supported for a century. 1. Yes, exactly, their constitutional justification is an insincere post-facto justification for policy they like, and their policy preferences when it comes to the commerce clause largely depend on which political part is in control of the federal government. 2. But they're totally non-partisan, right? ;-)