>I'm not sure you can claim that the movement of a physical object across a border is the same thing as a phone call. It seems like this discussion is getting

>I'm not sure you can claim that the movement of a physical object across a border is the same thing as a phone call. It seems like this discussion is getting lost in the distinction between what we all believe is right/just, and what the law covers/claims/allows, which we know are distinct. Again, outside of the realm of our approval, it certainly is likely the government would claim that the movement of the a physical object across a border is the same thing as a phone call. The stretching of these kinds of laws to near-breaking is the court's Raison d'être. Remember, the right of business owners to deny service to black people was struck down using the interstate commerce clause[0] - something the founders certainly didn't have in mind whenever they wrote it. [0]Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/241 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/241