it comes to enforcing a person’s right to “occupy” a home, enforcement should be left to the states. The government counters by arguing that, because the definition of “economic activity” is broad, the civil rights legislation at issue is easily considered “commercial activity” under the Commerce Clause. See September 21, 2001 Government Responsive Brief at 5. This legislation, according to. the government, is analogous to the legislation upheld in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 85 S.Ct. 348, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964), a case in which the Supreme Court held that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate discriminatory practices of hotel chains. Moreover, the government points out that even the mere “occupation” of a home arises ou ir.1997)(<HOLDING>). It is these small effects upon commerce that
holding that fire insurance written by two outofstate companies fuel obtained from outofstate and a restaurants use of food brought in from outof state have a substantial effect upon commerce holding that the requisite effect on interstate commerce for a 18 usc  1951 conviction is demonstrated by inter alia evidence that restaurant robbed by defendant had often purchased food products from outofstate vendors and that the money taken by defendant would have been used to buy more food products holding that an arkansas statute discriminated against interstate commerce by banning the importation of most outofstate waste even though a small amount of outofstate waste was allowed into arkansas under the statute holding that interstate commerce nexus is established where defendant stole less than 100 from bar that imported beer from outofstate holding that tavern that  purchased beer from outofstate vendor satisfied interstate commerce requirement in criminal explosives statute