You're still failing to distinguish between interstate commerce and foreign commerce.
"So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that although it wasn't part of the original intent for Congress to regulate commerce among the several states for the positive purposes of the country, Congress nevertheless has that power."
No. I'm saying that Madison's second letter opens the door to using the Commerce Clause in that manner.
If Madison hadn't written that second letter, then the door might have been opened to using the commerce clause in that manner. But he was clearly saying that the original intent for the power over interstate commerce was not "for the positive purposes of the General Government". It certainly doesn't "open the door" to the contrary conclusion.
If I say to you that "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" includes the power to place that foreign commerce at a disadvantage for the good of our country...
But that's not the only thing Madison said about the commerce clause in his first letter. He said, much more broadly, that regulating commerce means promoting manufactures. It's that broad reading that he was alluding to in his second letter, when he said it should not be applied to the power over interstate commerce. You're trying to cherry-pick and limit what he said, when in fact he himself was clearly indicating that the original intent for the "negative", "remedial" power over interstate commerce was to deal with abuses of power by state governments, and not to promote the positive purposes of the federal government.
1-8-3 doesn't. Why should I?
"But he was clearly saying that the original intent for the power over interstate commerce was not "for the positive purposes of the General Government"."
Yes. So? He didn't say that it couldn't be used that way.
The "original intent" of a hammer is to pound nails. Does that mean that it cannot be used to drive a wooden stake into the ground or remove a rusty muffler? C'mon.
Madison already admitted (in the first letter) that the commerce clause could be used over foreign commerce "for the positive purposes of the General Government". I fail to see why it cannot be used over interstate commerce "for the positive purposes of the General Government".
Why are you making a distinction between interstate commerce and foreign commerce?
"He said, much more broadly, that regulating commerce means promoting manufactures."
Yes. He said that, in his opinion, the commerce clause allows regulating foreign commerce as a means of promoting local manufactures.
He admits that wasnt the original intent of the commerce clause, but it could be used that way.
You're trying to say that the original intent precludes it being used any other way. Well, Madison already said it could be used negatively against foreign trade, didn't he? As I said, that opens the door. You're trying to reword the Commerce Clause to read:
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and to encourage commerce among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
That is not what it says. It says "regulate" once. And regulate means encourage, restrict, or prohibit, and it applies to foreign Nations (as Madison admitted), to commerce among the several states, and to commerce with the Indian Tribes.