Meaning what?
Meaning, as I said and you omitted from your reply, that the dictionary and FR usage agree that is manifestly not "nonsensical" to call unconstitutional that which the Supremes have ruled constitutional, as you claim it is.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
I never said otherwise - and I did say, "What we do about unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings is another question."
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.
If someone denies the nature of the problem - by e.g. saying it's nonsensical to call U.S. Supreme Court rulings unconstitutional - correcting their error is not "whining" but a necessary precursor to agreeing on a solution.
Not impossible, as I showed.
You showed me harassment of citizens who have broken no law.
Innocent citizens can be and sometimes are investigated for breaking all sorts of laws - if that's "harassment" then we can have no laws at all.
False. The ruling was specific to carriers - the text you quoted showed as much.
And Wickard v Filburn was specific to wheat.
No it wasn't - USSC rulings have been both broad and narrow, and Wickard v Filburn was explicitly broad:
"questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. [...] But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
In sharp contrast, the Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates - and its only broader language is to limit the ends for which that authority is meant to be used:
"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"
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.
As previously established, this claim is purely speculative, as no substantive attempt had been made before or since to control interstate traffic without instrastate control.
anyone who'd facilitate mid-air collisions
Sticking to your bootlicking assumption that it's federal regulation or a free-for-all, I see.
So we agree -- when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional, it's constitutional. Let's move on.
"Innocent citizens can be and sometimes are investigated for breaking all sorts of laws"
Of course. It's all part of the process of determining guilt or innocence.
But you're proposing the harassment of citizens who you know have broken no law.
"by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"
State laws legalizing marijuana are not "conflicting and discriminating" with federal laws?
"In sharp contrast, the Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates"
It wasn't that narrow. As a matter of fact, the Wickard court used it to support their decision.
"as no substantive attempt had been made before or since to control interstate traffic without instrastate control."
Well, as we have seen, you attribute any failure to a lack of a "substantive attempt". As I pointed out with alcohol, intrastate control was tried and failed. In addition, intrastate control is failing with marijuana -- the subject of the above article.
"Sticking to your bootlicking assumption that it's federal regulation or a free-for-all, I see."
I prefer to call it a pragmatic approach. But if you have a better solution, I'm all ears. Who knows? I just might end up agreeing with you.