Congress was legislating over federal territory. Like the district court, we "believe! ] that Congress has jurisdiction over interstate commerce [ (the Amendments Act's basis for jurisdiction)] just as it has jurisdiction over federal territory. Congress would have the same power to federalize state causes of action asserting either basis for jurisdiction.” O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 770 F.Supp. 448, 453 (C.D.Ill.1991). 6 . We address this particular issue of duty of care for a public liability cause of action in greater detail later in the opinion. See infra part II.C. 7 . In supporting his position of unconstitutionality, Mr. O'Conner invites our attention to a number of pre-Amendments Act cases. See, e.g., Stibitz v. General Pub. Util. Corp., 746 F.2d 993, 997 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214, 105 S.Ct. 1187,
holding that the elements of a cause of action were not subject matter jurisdictional simply because the statute that created the cause of action provided that district courts shall have jurisdiction of such actions holding that public liability action did not arise under pre1988 priceanderson act for article iii purposes and therefore federal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over cause of action holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim holding action did not arise under the patent laws holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act