The first one is more of an overview of some history behind the Constitution. It is not mandatory viewing. The second and third videos are required and good, on point content review. The producer has a conservative view. The resources cited at the end are not endorsed by me or Seattle University. The last video focuses on the Commerce Clause.
After you have completed this work, please then complete the following IRAC
Hypothetical: The shared economy in the United States is booming. Wikipedia comments in its definition that this new economy is "also known as shareconomy, collaborative consumption or peer economy; a common academic definition of the term refers to a hybrid market model (in between owning and gift giving) of peer-to-peer exchange. Such transactions are often facilitated via community-based online services."
Companies like Uber and Airbnb seem to be thriving. However, in the excitement of expansion the U.S. Congress developed strong concerns about how to regulate this new market. In March of 2017, Congress passed a new law requiring all "hosts" of shared economy services (e.g., Uber drivers) to provide their services equally without any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or gender, including gender identity and sexual orientation.
Steve Gordon, a Seattle resident and host of Airbnb services does not want to be regulated by this law. He does not want any restrictions regarding who he rents his Capitol Hill home to via Airbnb and has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Seattle to block the law from taking effect. Gordon claims Congress does not have authority to pass such a law. After initial filings, Gordon's attorney files a motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule as a matter of law in their favor.
You are the judge hearing the motion. What is your decision and how did you reach your conclusion? Focus on the substance of the dispute, not the motion requirements. Please explain your work clearly using the IRAC method. You might include in the A (application) section references to precedents (cases) discussed in chapter 4 which you find are similar/analogous to this case.