He also stated explicitly that this had nothing to do with the questions as to the meaning of the Commerce Clause, so why are you trying to drag it into the discussion?
WHAT???
YOU brought it up. You cited his letter as a "clue" to the "correct reading" of the Commerce Clause in your post #466!
Now you're saying that "He also stated explicitly that this had nothing to do with the questions as to the meaning of the Commerce Clause"?
Is there something wrong with you?