Given this sort of ruling, I'd like to know exactly what sort of act or product does not, in some tortuous way, effect interstat commerce...
For instance, I suppose that having a "homemade machine gun" effects interstate commerce by not having to buy an illegal machinegun from out of state.
And having homegrown pot depresses the economy of another state, or even another country, like Mexico, since you don't have to buy the pot from out of state...
Mark
Probably everything does. But that's beside the point.
What's at issue are those intrastate acts or products that a) substantially affect the interstate commerce that Congress b) is currently regulating.
Congress is controlling these intrastate acts or products using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause in conjunction with the Commerce Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot be used standalone -- it must be used in conjunction with another power.
The Necessary and Proper Clause (listed at the end of Congress' other powers) gives Congress the power to write laws that are both necessary and proper "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Without this, Congress would not be able to stop states or individuals from undermining and subverting their interstate efforts.
Your supposition is absolutly correct, and neatly summarizes the exact arguments & reasoning used in the Raich ruling. Heck, you very nearly got it verbatum. Read the ruling itself and you'll be surprised at how spot-on you are.
Yes, they're that nuts.