[robertpaulsen]

"Can you point me to this "substantially affects" language in the Constitution?"

No more than I can point you to the "right to privacy" language used in Roe v Wade or to the "concealed carry" language used in the 2nd amendment.

Are you saying the exact wording has to be in the U.S. Constitution for it to be valid? I do await your answer on this one.

"In other words, Congress has the right to regulate intrastate activity because anything done by every state within its borders would have an effect on interstate trade."

Hmmmm. I thought I was pretty clear. I'll try again.

Congress has the right to regulate legislate intrastate activity because if they determine that anything done by every state within its borders would have an a substantial effect on interstate trade they're currently regulating.

[BikerNYC]

Congress has the right to legislate intrastate activity if they determine that anything done by every state within its borders would have a substantial effect on interstate trade they're currently regulating.

This rule is completely made up with no support in the Constitution. Congress has the right to legislate interstate trade. Period. For example, it can legislate the movement of machine guns between the several states. It cannot legislate the manufacture or sale of machine guns that takes place completely within a state.

The rule you provide is an obvious attempt to give the federal government more power than the Constitution grants it.