Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): purchase of a personal automobile policy in Alabama from an Alabama insurance company had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. We note that the policy did not cover an automobile used for business purposes, other than farming or ranching, and that there is no evidence that Knight was engaged in either farming or ranching. We can see only one conceivable connection between this insurance transaction and interstate commerce — this intrastate transaction may be one of many such transactions that help fund Southern United’s business, thus enabling it to issue other policies that substantially affect interstate commerce. However, we decline to hold, based on the record before us, that such a tenuous connection would be sufficient to invoke the FAA. See United States v. Lopez, supra (<HOLDING>). Southern United had the burden of proving 
 Holding statements: (A) holding unconstitutional 18 usc  922q as beyond congresss commerce clause power (B) 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 (C) holding that morrison does not change the holding in mcallister and that  922g is a constitutional exercise of congresss commerce power (D) holding that 42 usc  13981 exceeds congresss authority under the commerce clause (E) recognizing that there is an outer limit to congresss power under the commerce clause
Output (English): 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