[Rockingham]

The bare terms of the Constitution often leaving room for uncertainty, originalists and conservatives commonly turn to the Federalist Papers and Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention for further insight. I submit that a fair reading of the following supports my view of the federal commerce power:

FEDERALIST No. 22
Other Defects of the Present Confederation
From the New York Packet.
Friday, December 14, 1787.

HAMILTON

The want of a power to regulate commerce is by all parties allowed to be of the number [of defects of the Confederation]. The utility of such a power has been anticipated under the first head of our inquiries; and for this reason, as well as from the universal conviction entertained upon the subject, little need be added in this place. It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence.

Tuesday September 15, 1787

Mr. MADISON. Whether the States are now restrained from laying tonnage duties depends on the extent of the power "to regulate commerce." These terms are vague, but seem to exclude this power of the States. . . . He was more & more convinced that the regulation of Commerce was in its nature indivisible and ought to be wholly under one authority.

Mr. SHERMAN. The power of the U. States to regulate trade being supreme can controul interferences of the State regulations when such interferences happen; so that there is no danger to be apprehended from a concurrent jurisdiction.

[inquest]

All you've proven with those is that federal power is supreme, where federal power is constitutional. That still doesn't even come close to making your casee as to the constitutional (non-)limits of that power. The fact remains, it has clearly crossed the limit when it's regulating private transactions within a state. Otherwise, the commerce clause would have just said commerce, without any qualifiers about being among the several states, with the Indian tribes, etc.

[Ken H]

originalists and conservatives commonly turn to the Federalist Papers and Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention for further insight.

James Madison in Federalist No. 45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

Madison on the original intent of the power to regulate comerce among the several States:

"Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government,"

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html