1. Does-the "Aggregate Effects'! doctrine under Gonzales v Raich ,
545 US 1 (2005) expand federal prosecution powers beyond the
original limits designated by the United States Constitution
under the Commerce Clause?

2. Have the Lower Courts misapplied the "Aggregate Effects"
doctrine under Gonzales v Raich , to 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), where
intrastate challenges by Gonzales v Raich and other case law
were denied relief where the statute specifically mentions
intrastate activities, such as the Controlled Substances Act in
Gonzales v Raich?

2L. Does. -Congr~e.s.s ...have, the—Cons-ti-tutional -authori-t-y to- -regul-ate
purely intrastate activity including widely available internet
content when there is no economic impact, under a standard set
by this Court in United States v Morrison , 528 US 598 (2000)?

4. Under Title 18, -U.S.C. § 2251(a), is there proper Fair Notice,
as set forth by this Court in Fasulo y United States , 272 U.S.
620 (1926); that a crime of purely intrastate production of a
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, of child
pornography, was defined by Congress as a federal criminal
offense?

5. Are the Congressional Findings of the "Child Pornography
Per-vent ion Act" of 2006 accurate today as to online content
freely available and anonymously, since technology has
advanced, and there is no economic nexis for receipt or.
possession?

6. Does anonymously entering in-to the online content of child
pornography, and the receipt and possession of Images that are
widely available for free with the click of a'mouse, meet the
definition of commerce: buying, selling, bartering.or trading,
or does it have any economic impact upon any market?

Where does the trail of Interstate Commerce end, and thus
Congress' Constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with
foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the
Indian tribes."?

Does the 'Aggregate Effects' doctrine under Gonzales v. Raich expand federal prosecution powers beyond the original constitutional limits of the Commerce Clause, particularly in cases involving intrastate internet content and child pornography?