Of course I do. But it's just a start. You got anything (besides your tired old opinion) to negate it?
"[T]he New Deal Court’s own constitutional justification for its radical expansion of the scope of federal power over commerce was that the congressional measures in question were valid exercises of the power granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause and were not direct exercises of the power to regulate commerce among the several states. That is, the Court did not simply and directly enlarge the scope of the Commerce Clause itself, as is often believed. Rather, it upheld various federal enactments as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce."
--Stephen Gardbaum, Rethinking Constitutional Federalism, 74 Tex. L. Rev. 795, 807-08 (1996)
Do you have anything of any historical consequence? A quote by someone else agreeing with you, without providing any basis for how that conclusion was arrived at is no more autoritative than your own opinion. Can you provide any reference to the nature and scope of the Necessary and Proper clause from the founders that indicates that this is indeed an valid exercise of that power?