I gave you one in an 1824 case which expanded the power of the Commerce Clause beyond your piddling restriction.
A long, long, long time ago.
I also gave you one in 1829 which mentioned the "Dormant Commerce Clause", a direct reference to the states resolving injustice among themselves without Congressional action.
Totally contrary to your interpretation of Madison's letter. Give it up.
Which case was that? What were they doing that wasn't an exercise in correcting an injustice among the states, that they expanded the power to encompass?
I also gave you one in 1829 which mentioned the "Dormant Commerce Clause", a direct reference to the states resolving injustice among themselves without Congressional action.
You still can't provide any evidence that the Founders intended the power to RCATSS to be used for the "positive purposes of the General Government" that doesn't require substantial assumptions about facts not in evidence. All you've done is pile a few inferences on top of each other to arrive at a conclusion, and you've had to do it with inferences that no one else finds rational.
That is not what the 1829 decision said. Did you even read the opinion?
Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co.
But the measure authorized by this act [passed by the State of Delaware] stops a navigable creek, and must be supposed to abridge the rights of those who have been accustomed to use it. But this abridgement, unless it comes in conflict with the Constitution or a law of the United States, is an affair between the government of Delaware and its citizens, of which this Court can take no cognizance.
The counsel for the plaintiffs in error insist that it comes in conflict with the power of the United States "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." If Congress had passed any act which bore upon the case, any act in execution of the power to regulate commerce, the object of which was to control state legislation over those small navigable creeks into which the tide flows, and which abound throughout the lower country of the middle and southern states; we should feel not much difficulty in saying that a state law coming in conflict with such act would be void. But Congress has passed no such act.
The repugnancy of the law of Delaware to the Constitution is placed entirely on its repugnancy to the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states; a power which has not been so exercised as to affect the question.
We do not think that the act empowering the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company to place a dam across the creek, can, under all the circumstances of the case, be considered as repugnant to the power to regulate commerce in its dormant state, or as being in conflict with any law passed on the subject.[end excerpt]
Marshall did not use the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine as it is being explained by you. Read the opinion, he says that unless Congress has acted, the Court has no basis for consideration of the power to RCATSS in its decision.