If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people, and the authority of the state over its domestic concerns would exist only by sufferance of the federal government. Indeed, on such a theory, even the development of the state's commercial facilities would be subject to federal controlThe above is the first act (everything is indirect commerce), with Wickard being the closing act of the play in that the opinion rendered is that no longer can commerce be viewed strictly as being "direct" or "indirect", or purely from manufacturing or production formulas, and that local activity in aggregate affects commerce nationally and therefor must be regulated locally.
Frankly, I believe the Republic in its true form only lasted the first 50 years or so after its founding. Jackson's struggle against a central bank was a battle one, but the Republic ended up essentially losing the "war". I believe the issue pertaining to slavery was really what set the country on the course of the slippery slope; that inherently was an issue over state's rights.
Furthermore, the Reconstruction Era was also formative in what I'd term the Second Republic, in that the issue of whether or not the states actually secceded or not - the view being they never left the Union in the first place, the Union being indissoluble (the states that secceded merely being rebellious) - but the Confederate States had to make certain concession with respect to being admitted back to the Union. That's political sophistry at its epitome IMHO. Its no suprise that this extends to the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the commerce clause (or Roe v Wade), Congress' interpretation of the Welfare Clause, or even the Executive branch respecting use of the armed forces.
From a strictly Constitutional perspective, nowhere can it be found a mandate for a standing army. In fact that would be anathema to the Founders. Would that be a good idea to disband the military in this day and age? What would it take to call up the military on a moments notice today? Think about that and its consequences. Constitutionally Congress has the power to make war, the Executive has the authority to prosecute war.
What if we didn't have a standing army? The War Powers Act would be a moot point. Clearly without a U.S. military, the rest of the world would have nothing to fear, right? How would we have countered the Soviet threat? If we would've disbanded our military after VJ day, the Soviets would've stood down right?
Indeed. Marshall went to the trouble to explicitly state that the ruling in Ogden v Gibbons did not extend federal reach to purely intrastate commerce. He must have had some reason to make that statement. I'm finding it hard to accept that current doctrine is consistent with Marshall's writings when it renders distinctions he was careful to explicitly state become virtually non-existent.
I keep hearing arguments about "How would we do without this or that?". No one will address the issue with regards to Washington's warnings in his Farewell Address and explain why it is impossible to enact these things by the process of public debate, vote, and amendment of the Constitution.
It's always presented as if it's self-evident truth that we simply cannot manage to govern ouselves without resorting to and relying on the lowest kind of sophistry to get anything done.