REPLY TO CLASSMATE’S POST

Has the Court used the commerce clause in any innovative ways to pass legislation? 
How does the Commerce Clause limit what Congress can do?  Explain.
Are you aware of any cases in which the initial boundaries of the Commerce clause have been stretched? 
Are there any interesting and what we could consider “landmark cases” that involve the Commerce clause? 
Is the Commerce clause about limiting existing rules or for making new rules?  Explain with an example.
Consider using findlaw as a search tool to find case law—be sure to cite the case only and not the mechanism by which it was delivered to you-  

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH MY CLASSMATE RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTION AND WHY? (A MININUM OF 100 WORDS)
 
                                                           CLASSMATE’S POST
The Court has used the commerce clause in innovative ways. The latest innovative way in which the Court used the commerce clause was the Affordable Care Act.
The commerce clause states Congress has the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, however ruling by the Court have broadened that.
The United States v. Lopez is a case that is an example of the boundaries of the Commerce clause being stretched.
Wickard v. Filburn was a landmark case that increased the regulatory power of the federal government and set precedent for an expanded interpretation of the US Constitution’s Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause is for making new rules. The Commerce Clause is regulatory in nature. The Clause being regulatory in nature is set up to be a guide giving limitations to what the legislation can be.