[Tublecane]

“the primary limit is the 10th Amendment, which says that even if there are shadows and penumbras, the federal government is prohibited from interfering”

Actually, the primary limit is in the nature of the Constitution itself, which is merely clarified by the 10th amendment. Like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., amendments it shouldn’t have had to be written at all. I’m glad it was, incidentally.

[Phlyer]

Actually, the primary limit is in the nature of the Constitution itself, which is merely clarified by the 10th amendment.

We're actually in agreement of course. A "fair" reading of the Constitution makes the Bill of Rights moot. But English is a complex and subtle language. There is logic behind the analysis of the 4th Amendment says that there is a qualified right for a person to be 'secure in their person'. If that's the case, and the 'privileges and immunities' of US citizens include this right to be secure in their person, then the 14th Amendment might place it within federal authority to do something about ensuring people have that right - which is how we got Roe v. Wade.

That logic is not precluded by the rather vague language on 'regulating' interstate commerce. However, I maintain that it is precluded by the 10th Amendment that says even if there are nebulous 'rights' like that - it's not up to the federal government to secure them. One of our explicit, written out in the 10th Amendment, 'privileges and immunities' is freedom from federal interference in every last aspect of our lives - even if that aspect is a 'right'. I think any rational, honest, 'fair' person would recognize that an explicit, unambiguous right would be more compelling than 'shadows and penumbras' in a sometimes vaguely written document.

Of course, since FDR we haven't had rational, honest, and fair Justices on the Supreme Court - at least not a majority of them. That also applies to the lower courts, because the Supreme Court lets them get away with political rather than legitimate decisions.