In my view there is a vast difference between a host dumping a caller who disagrees with the host's 2nd Amendment views (because the host believes the caller's 2nd Amendment is "false"), and a host taking calls or guests from members of the groups you listed.
Hosts dump callers because news/talk radio is a form of improvisational audio theater. That's why news/talk shows are called "shows". It seems to me that most hosts would dmp callers they disagreed with only if they were excessively strident or whose lack of facts made them sound like morons. There was a notoriously liberal local talk host in Pittsburgh I would often call, often about issues like hunting and gun control. I was always polite, articulate, respectful, and armed with facts. She not only never once dumped me, she often left me on the air for longer than her show's usual time limit. But, if some neanderthal got through and started blathering like an idiot, he'd get dumped in a New York minute. It might sound amazing, but after I explained to her, on the air, the difference between a semi-automatic sporting rifle like the AR-15 and a true assault rifle like the M-16, she stopped automatically referring to all black rifles as "assault weapons". However, she didn't change her mind about wanting them banned, she simply expanded the scope of what she wanted banned from just "assault rifles" to sometimes saying "both assault rifles and semiautomatics".
Sometimes I suspect that call screeners deliberately look for "crazies" to put through just to set the host up for a dramatic call dump. It seems that the normal dismissal of a caller is for the host or producer to turn the caller's sound off, then to quietly hang up on them while the host is talking. It's not often that a host actually hangs up on a caller, but when it does happen, it's often done with theatrical flair. As I said, that's just part of the show.
The Constitution plainly says that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. Article 1, Section 8: "Congress shall have the power...... To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States."
It's pretty plain what the word "commerce" means, and what the word "regulate" means. It's also pretty plain what the phrase "among the several States" means.
No stretch of reality at all.
A doctor in his office examining a patient in that same office is not engaged in "interstate commerce". Even if the doctor's tools and instruments were purchased in interstate commerce, or the medication the doctor prescribes might be shipped across state lines, the act of a doctor examining and/or treating a patient doesn't have a damn thing to do with interstate commerce.
Regardless of the details, the issue is just an illustration of a point. Instead of a carefully thought-out, long-term plan, they followed the process that Goat Rodeo Cowboy advocated when he said,
"Whether it is a legislative committee working on a new bill, or a corporation trying to iron out employee policy or work out a new policy for a warranty program for the company's product, the discussion has to start with the 'small moving parts'. Until what we used to call 'group dynamics' get to simmering and cooking by tackling smaller elements one at a time, the group will just come unglued if they try to discuss the big issues, the full issue before the group has established trust and flexibilty and the ability to communicate among themselves."
That entire premise is wrong. No matter how you re-examine the decisions that lead to the Vietnam War, they all disprove the idea of working on the "small moving parts" first. That principle is just plain incorrect.
