... affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (emphasis added). Third, because the Hobbs Act contains a jurisdictional element, Foster’s argument that the government has not shown the required nexus to interstate commerce is merely a challenge to the sufficiency of the government’s proof of an element of the offense, and not a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute. The Court’s holding in Lopez does not affect the interstate commerce requirements of the Hobbs Act, and therefore Lopez does not support Foster’s as applied constitutional challenge. See also United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 843-44 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated, we conclude the Hobbs
holding after lopez that the interstate nexus element of the hobbs act still requires the government to show only a minimal connection to interstate commerce holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce holding that the district court properly denied defendants motion to dismiss based upon a lack of jurisdiction when defendant challenged the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act holding the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law