My thought is that they didn't want to clutter it up with something like, "Congress shall have the power to regulate, encourage, restrict, prohibit, tax, tariff, limit, assist, ... commerce" I utterly destroy your attempt to parse away a question that you cannot answer, then you come back with an even more diluted argument.
The framers were quite plain in their intentions that the federal government be federal with very limited national powers. The only powers in Article 1 Section 8 that directly apply to the activities of individuals (that is to say, a national application) are clause 6 and 10.
Many people on these type threads have posted to you over and over the very words of the framers on the federal governments national jurisdiction and the intended purpose of the commerce clause.
Yet you still push this flawed SC reasoning.
The fact is that the substantial effects doctrine means Congress can prohibit any substance, item and activity because all those can be related to interstate commerce in some way. SC justices have said this in those same words.
The fact remains, if the framers wanted the federal government to have these powers, they would have specified them in plain words. Clutter? An additional sentence would have "cluttered" the federal constitution? 19 clauses in section 8 instead of 18 would "clutter"?
Weal arguments. Very weak.
What can be said of one who is so prejudicial against an individual choosing his state of mind and body that he will subvert the foundation of our law and the limitations on governmental bodies to accomplish it?
"Congress can prohibit any substance, item and activity because all those can be related to interstate commerce in some way."ONLY IF Congress is regulating that interstate commerce to begin with.
What's with you? You'd restrict Congress to regulating interstate commerce only, since that's your interpretation of "among the several states". Then you'd allow the states to engage in commerce and activities that would frustrate or negate congressional efforts at their interstate regulation? Is that right?
What, do you think this is some kind of game? Some joke you can play with a supposed "loophole" in the U.S. Constitutiuon?
You'd turn the entire Constitution on its head just to get your precious marijuana legalized. If this were about regulating salt instead of marijuana I wouldn't be hearing a commerce clause peep out of you and most of the pro-marijuana legalizers.
Yes, Congress has the power to regulate just about everything. Maybe everything. Time after time, the courts have said that this commerce clause power is awesome. But they've also added that it is not up to them to restrict it. It is up to the people who elected their congressmen in the first place.
There's your solution. Quit screwing with the Constitution.