[Aquinasfan]

You're both making good points.

My understanding is that the commerce clause was intended to avoid trade wars between states. Was that the original intent? If so, how would the modern interpretation square with the original intent?

[spunkets]

Commerce is a endeavor of the people, not the States. The original States were not involved in commerce. WI is forbidden from engaging in any commerce whatsoever. States can only regulate and unless they all agree to the same regulation, the result is unfairness in markets of interstate scope. The unfairness usually favors the interests of that States players. That was recognized originally, hence the Constitution with it's commerce clause.

The fact that Congress has not always acted in a way that imposed fairness and equity to all State players does not effect the purpose and intent of the clause. The greatest divergence from the original intent is the modern usage of the clause and other phrases to engage in socialism. That is State engagement in commerce. To various degrees the fed has taken over the sovereignty of decision for both consumer and service, or goods provider. Freedom, individual rights and fairness is junked in that corrupted application.

[inquest]

My understanding is that the commerce clause was intended to avoid trade wars between states. Was that the original intent?

Indeed it was. Unlike the clause on foreign commerce, the only real purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to take the power out of the hands of the states. As Madison explained:

Yet it is very certain that it [the interstate commerce clause] 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, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.