>>The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's it. If a local activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating, then Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that activity. Without that ability, states or individuals could undermine and subvert Congress' authority. Why even give Congress the power?<<
I confess that this is my first serious thinking about this issue so this is a bit off the cuff.
Not in order:
1. The phrase "subvert Congress' authority" makes me a bit wary - during my lifetime (60's through present)it has almost always been the federal government claiming more power.
2. Intent: I can't believe the founders intended to have federal control over a family having an apple tree and eating the apples off that tree - and that's what we seem to be talking about - Federal control of something that is entirely locally produced and consumed.
3. Practicality: Rather than "subverting anything from the states I fear this will actually be a giant expansion of Federal government. Think of the many things that fall in the category of "local activity that has as substantial an effect on the interstate commerce person smoking pot to get his appetite back after chemotherapy" - backyard gardens, zoning regulations, school boards, building codes, utility rates, state taxes - all these things effect interstate commerce.
Taken to an extreme, this could be like that scene in Ghandi where he walks down to the sea to make salt and the British arrest him because if everybody did that then the salt industry would be hurt.
"... backyard gardens, zoning regulations, school boards, building codes, utility rates, state taxes - all these things effect interstate commerce."That's true. They do. And they are off-limits to the federal government unless the activity, taken collectively, has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating.
Let's take your family with the apple tree example. If we substitute wheat for apples, we have the landmark case that started this whole thing, Wickard v Filburn.
In the 1930's, there was a glut of wheat on the world market. Prices were depressed, and American farmers were filing for bankruptcy. The government's solution was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which limited wheat production but guaranteed the farmers a higher per bushel price. Wickard was the Secretary of Agriculture.
Filburn was an Ohio wheat farmer allotted 11 acres -- he planted, however, 23 acres, selling 11 to market at the government-sponsored price (which was 3X world market price) and keeping 12 for his livestock, for seed, and for his family's use. He was allowed to do this, but that required him to either store it or pay a "penalty" of 49 cents per bushel. He refused, saying that Congress did not have the power to regulate his own personal use.
Sound familiar?
The U.S. Supremne Court ruled that Congress did have the power saying, "That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce ...".