[Know your rights]

The "FDR court" did not stretch the Commerce Clause. It upheld various federal enactments [including regulation of intrastate commerce] as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce.

You sentences contradict each other, once the weasel-words "various federal enactments" are clearly defined.

[robertpaulsen]

"You sentences contradict each other, once the weasel-words "various federal enactments" are clearly defined."

Baloney.

The Commerce Clause is what it is. FDR merely took advantage of the Necessary and Proper Clause power to implement and enforce interstate regulations. The Commerce Clause wasn't "stretched" -- how could it be?

Now, this seems to be just fine with you as long as the Necessary and Proper Clause is used to regulate commerce by removing intrastate obstacles (One might ask, without that clause, where would you be? Answer: Stretching the Commerce Clause).

But you get your panties in a knot when it's used to regulate commerce by prohibiting intrastate activities, even though the courts have ruled that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit".

You're pretty selective as to how you interpret the constitution.