But there is the Tenth Amendment.
Hence, my argument that Congress does not have the power to restrict corporate political activity is Constitutionally grounded, your assertion that it can is disproven.
Since the Constitution does not allow Congress to control corporate political activity, the court's announcement that the Congress does not have that power is not "judicial activism".
Since we're exploring this brand new definition of judicial activism that never existed before, and since you're opposed to it, what's you're opinion of the Brown vs Board of Education ruling?
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
The GOVERNMENT seized it because the "Progressives" allowed that to happen, even though there's no Constitutional authority for the government to seize or regulate property.
The correct and Constitutional process to "regulate" the E-M spectrum would have been to allow exploiters of new radio bands title to those bands in their area of broadcast, and to treat such titles as the government treats real estate.
Just in case you didn't notice, there are laws against trespassing on privately owned property and there could easily have been anti-E-M-trespassing laws.
Cite the Constitutional authority allowing the government to steal the E-M spectrum.
This ruling from SCOTUS affirms that imo. Whether that's what they intended or not.
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
GM is a government controlled company at this time.
When the government divests itself of GM, GM can resume it's status as an equal among other publicly traded corporations and private persons.