[pawdoggie]

You're amazing. You make an argument which you freely acknowledge has been "overturned" by the "post New Deal Supreme Court", then you tell me that I have the "onus" of disproving your "overturned" arguments! We may not like every decision of the Supreme Court(s), but until they are "overturned" by succeeding courts, or through Constitutional amendment, they are the law (as opposed to your "previous understanding" or interpretation). Don't tell me how you interpret the Commerce Clause, 'cause your interpretation and a dollar won't even get you a cup of Starbucks these days.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

We may not like every decision of the Supreme Court(s), but until they are "overturned" by succeeding courts, or through Constitutional amendment, they are the law

You keep saying things that aren't true. Supreme Court decisions are OPINIONS and every one is explicitly labeled as such.

Article VI of the Constitution says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Nothing there about Supreme Court or any other courts making "law" and they are explicitly placed under it.

And the onus in a philosophical debate is far different than the onus in a courtroom. Your argument that the Supreme Court said it and that settles it is an argument from authority. That is a fallacy. It also binds you to support all decisions to date, contradictory as they are, on abortion, emminent domain, religious symbols etc. What's more, it precludes you from having an opinion if their rulings change. It makes you a tool of the status quo, whatever it might be at the time. Or do you only present the status quo as a principle when it is to your liking?