Then we differ. Once the U.S. Supreme Court rules constitutional, it's constitutional. By definition.
Wrong - the definition of "constitutional" is "provided by, in accordance with, or not prohibited by, a constitution" - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constitutional
And FR usage conforms with the dictionary definition: many FReepers agree that Roe v Wade and Obamacare are unconstitutional, U.S. Supreme Court rulings to the contrary notwithstanding.
Now you may disagree with the ruling,
On what basis, if not lack of conformity with the constitution? If one disagrees with a ruling because one considers it bad policy, one has misunderstood the proper role of the judiciary, which is not to make policy.
but that changes nothing.
Noting lack of conformity with the constitution is not sufficient to change anything, but without such noting where is the motivation or argument to change anything?
No, the point is that illegal interstate sales occur now, so are irrelevant to the issue of legalizing intrastate sales.
Illegal interstate sales occurring now can be prosecuted. Your proposal would make those prosecutions impossible for the reasons I mentioned.
Not impossible, as I showed.
How are carriers relevant to the matter at hand?
They're not. But the court ruling is.
False. The ruling was specific to carriers - the text you quoted showed as much.
I'm saying that neither enumerated power implies a power to ban alcohol within states.
Well, if Congress has the power to ban alcohol with the Indian tribes, they can certainly ban alcohol among the several states since both are mentioned in the Commerce Clause.
But they have no power to ban alcohol within states, since that is notably excluded from the Commerce Clause.
Meaning what? That they are unconstitutional? There are at least as many people who think those rulings are constitutional. Now what?
The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter. If there is an issue pending before the court, however, feel free to call that issue the way you see it.
"but without such noting where is the motivation or argument to change anything?"
By saying you disagree with the ruling and by proposing a solution. Otherwise you're simply whining.
"Not impossible, as I showed."
You showed me harassment of citizens who have broken no law.
"False. The ruling was specific to carriers - the text you quoted showed as much."
And Wickard v Filburn was specific to wheat. Come on. You're smarter than that.
"But they have no power to ban alcohol within states, since that is notably excluded from the Commerce Clause."
Intrastate alcohol sales have an effect on the interstate alcohol sales that Congress is constitutionally regulating. Without regulating intrastate alcohol sales, Congress cannot exercise their Commerce Clause power.
If you didn't have an agenda, you'd admit that. But anyone who'd facilitate mid-air collisions in pursuit of said agenda is not going to admit anything.