I fucking suck at commerce clause. Can I get some help?
Whoever intentionally damages or destroys by means of fire any building, including a private residence, involved in interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce, shall be imprisoned...
Federal prosecutors alleged that the owner of the home in question had: (1) used the home as collateral to secure a mortgage from a lender outside Kent; (2) obtained an insurance policy for the home from an insurer based outside Kent; and (3) received natural gas to power the home from a natural gas source located outside Kent
I feel like the private residence itself can't be an instrumentality since it isn't actually moving across state lines... But, could I somehow analogize to Heart of ATL Motel for channels? I'm having trouble coming up with a way to...
What about Lopez 3? For example, what would I be trying to analyze as facially economic? The purchase/upkeep of a home? Or the destruction of the home via fire? If I conclude that it (whatever that is) is commercial, would I say that the upkeep of a house is an intrastate activity, but that it's only one step removed from intangible goods moving across state lines (insurance policy + mortgages) and intangible things (natural gas)? Thus, it's distinguishable from Lopez b/c we can find a causal link that destruction of private homes would impact the flow of 'goods' from out of state providers? Moreover, I could point to how the statute qualifies the destruction to only those involved in interstate commerce or any activity affecting interstate commerce.
What else could I say? How could I push against the pro-CC analysis?
Also... how do I evaluate this under the N&P Clause? I have no idea where to start... what would the broader regulatory scheme be?
ETA: Can anyone send me model answers for CC analysis questions....?