Wilson? You cited it under this heading:
Case law pertainent to stare decisis respecting the Commerce clause:
Id., WILLSON v. BLACK-BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 27 U.S. 245 (1829):
Wilson has nothing to do with Wickard to my knowledge, I don't believe there's any dormant commerce at issue in Wickard. Wickard violated a commerce regulatory act. The only reason I cited it was that the Dormant Commerce Clause can't be found anywhere in the Constitution; it is an
inferred reading. The only relavence it has to anything, is that I believe that's how they came up with
Roe v Wade. But specifically I don't believe its relevant to Wickard at all.
Respecting Supreme Court inferences pertaining to the Constitution, it seems to me that Marshall did a whole lot of inferring in the section about what commerce is and what the power to regulate it entails in the Gibbons case, so where should one draw the line in that regard?