No, you are wrong. They had to cease and desist because a bureaucrat ruled that what they were doing was illegal...even though they were not doing what the law the bureaucrat based that ruling on said was the illegal act.
I will give you an example that may help you understand. I have a friend who made some renovations to a house he bought. The township building inspector came by and said, "These renovations were illegal because you didn't get a building permit. " Your answer would be, "See, what he did was illegal because the building inspector said it was illegal." However, my friend had a copy of the township ordnance on what types of renovations required a building permit. The township ordnance explicitly stated that you only needed a building permit if you increased the number of doors and/or windows or expanded the footprint of the house. My friend had decreased the number of doors and windows as part of his renovation and did not change the footprint of the house. The fact that a bureaucrat says that something is illegal does not meant that it is illegal.

While what you are saying is probably pretty close to what the Framers of the Constitution intended, it bears no resemblance to what the courts have actually ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat for consumption by livestock on his own farm was subject to regulation under the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling reversing that one, everything and anything is interstate commerce.

The funny thing about your comment is that the some of the strongest backers of the Jim Crow laws, at a time when most politicians were turning against them, were Al Gore, Sr (perhaps you've heard of his son?) and William Fulbright (mentor to one William Jefferson Clinton).

Perhaps where you live it does, but not where I live. It is perfectly safe to drink water out of the wells in my area with no treatment. This is exactly the problem I was referring to. You assume that everyone needs their drinking water treated before it is safe to drink. I live in an area where most of the people drink water that does not need treating in order for it to be safe to drink, but you would like to pass laws making us deal with our water as if it required treatment.
And as someone else pointed out, in some areas that do require that water be treated in order to be safe for drinking, that cost may be less than the cost of re-engineering the plumbing in a house in order to use grey water for flushing a toilet. The fact of the matter is that you want to extend your limited knowledge to create a rule that everyone must live by.

This is the type of generalization that is the problem with all central planners, including those who advocate doing so in order to "save the environment". Where I live the amount of fresh water available so far exceeds the needs of the population and the environment that the additional costs in energy and other environmental impact exceed any value gained from using "grey water" to flush toilets. Not only is the rainfall more than adequate, the landscape is such that the rain which does fall is able to soak into the ground sufficiently to replenish the ground water levels.

That is a strange definition of "right" and "left". Traditionally, the left has advocated for getting the government out of enforcing traditional moral codes, while at the same time inventing new, more intrusive moral codes which they demand the government enforce.Of course part of the problem is that most people define the poltical spectrum as going from the "ultra-right wing" fascists, who push for government control over the economy, to the "ultra-left wing" communists, who push for government control over the economy. Personally, I favor a government based on the idea that people are responsible for their own economic well-being.

You mean sort of the way Democrats like to spread a vague sense that they seek to improve the lives of minorities while following their traditions of doing everything in their power to keep them down? Of course the Democrats are much better at being two-faced than Republicans because they have managed to convince people that, despite the fact that their policies are bad for minorities, and despite the fact that most of their arguments for those policies amount to stating that minorities need whites to take care of them, they actually are attempting to improve the lot of minorities and that they believe that minorities are just as capable as whites. Further, they have managed to convince people that those who say that minorities are perfectly capable of succeeding without anybody else's help are racists who think that minorities are inferior.

You missed one "fact" and test for AGW 6)As CO2 in the atmosphere rises, temperatures will rise in some proportion to that rise. Testable? Yes Tested? Yes Could anyone devise a test? Yes Of course that is because even thought that is testable and tested, the results of the test is that it does not actually work out that way. Observed changes in temperature do not match what any of the projections based on the theory said they should be in relation to observed changes in CO2 concentration. This suggests to any rational observer that there are some serious shortcomings in the theory that should be worked out before people start surrendering freedom in order to combat the predicted problems (especially when the result of surrendering that freedom is projected to have almost no impact on the problem it is supposed to combat).

You do know that if Canadians truly cared about Canadian artists, books, movies, etc. there would be no need for a government mandate? But they don't really care about such things, they just want to appear to care.

Piers Gaveston and Hans Hermann Von Katte were influential in the lives of the prominent men BEFORE they rose to power, and the information on Elisabeth Woodville fails to suggest that she pulled Edward the IV strings, merely that her family profited from her relationship with him causing a rift with another courtier who desired those profits for himself or his allies. in additon, Elisabeth Woodville had an ability to influence Edward IV that was not open to Cheney.
So, once again, if Dick Cheney had been at W.'s side while he was governor of Texas, it might be believable that he was pulling W.'s strings, but since Cheney did not become part of W.'s inner circle until after he was well on his way to power, it is not.

If you think someone other than W. was calling the shots while he was President (which is different than saying he was the brains behind everything), then you do not understand how politics work.

Perhaps you did not notice, but he was the front man as well. It is believable that someone rises from nowhere to great power. It is believable that the son of a powerful family stays in the background and controls someone who has risen from nowhere to a position of great power. It is even believable that someone from nowhere might become attached to the son of a powerful family early on and exert control over him as he rises to a position of prominence. What is not believable is that a person from nowhere might take control over the son of a powerful family, just as that son completes his acquisition of a position of power, especially not when that son spent time before that being groomed/grooming himself for that position (being the popular governor of one of the most populous states counts as being groomed to be President).

In what way would that change the fact that if someone was controlling George W. Bush, they would have had to be controlling him all along? It's not as if the son of a former President/Director of the CIA, grandson of a Senator, and great grandson of a railroad baron would have NEEDED Dick Cheney to get to the White House. If you are inclined to believe in conspiracy theories it makes more sense to think that Dick Cheney served as a "House retainer" to George W. Bush than that George W. Bush was controlled by, and subservient to, Dick Cheney.

You miss the point. There is no way that Dick Cheney was pulling George W. Bush's strings. While it is possible that George W. Bush chose to uniformly follow Dick Cheney's advice, it was still merely advice that Dick Cheney had no ability to force him to follow. The real problem with considering Dick Cheney as the power behind George W. Bush is that Dick Cheney was nowhere to be found around W. while he was governor of Texas.

Oh yeah, that makes sense. The son of a former President, former CIA Director, grandson of a U.S. Senator, and great-grandson of one of the 19th centuries rail barons was merely a sock puppet serving the interests of the son of a minor bureaucrat with the Department of Agriculture. You know, people should look at the nature of history before they start building conspiracy theories.