So you concede that the power to regulate commerce "among the several states" does extend to intrastate commerce that substantially affects interstate commerce -- but only to remove hindrances to that trade?
Hammer v. Dagenhart was overturned by US v. Darby Lumber Company.
"... Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord stated that a "local business" is not interstate commerce "even though the business be conducted in close connection with interstate commerce."
True. But the business was being conducted in close connection with interstate commerce that Congress was not regulating.
"In the absence of Congressional legislation on the subject, state laws which are not regulations of the commerce itself or its instrumentalities are not forbidden, even though they affect interstate commerce. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. l; Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 504; Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245; Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172."
-- US v Darby
No, I'm saying that the Shreveport decision doesn't support your position.
Hammer v. Dagenhart was overturned by US v. Darby Lumber Company.
An FDR-court decision, like I said.