No. When the court rewrites the law and orders remedial action, that's called "legislating from the bench". When the court determines if a law is constitutional, it's called "doing their job".
"The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to regulate tariffs between the sates regarding interstate commerce."
So? What is important is the original meaning, not the original intent. The original intent of the hammer was to pound nails -- does that mean it cannot be used for any other purpose?
The original meaning of the Commerce Clause was to regulate commerce among the several states. At least, that's what is says. It says nothing about being limited to regulating tariffs between states.
"The original intent of the Commerce Clause is to regulate, not prohibit"
No. The original use of the Commerce Clause was to remove barriers to commerce among the states. It was used later to prohibit commerce among the states. Both actions are allowed under the definition of "to regulate".
President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, used both actions when "regulating" commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes.
"Most directly, the commerce power permits Congress not only to devise rules for the governance of commerce between States but also to facilitate interstate commerce by eliminating potential obstructions, and to restrict it by eliminating potential stimulants. That is why the Court has repeatedly sustained congressional legislation on the ground that the regulated activities had a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
-- Justice Scalia in Gonzales v Raich
The original use of the Commerce Clause was to remove barriers to commerce among the states. It was used later to prohibit commerce among the states. Both actions are allowed under the definition of "to regulate".
The original intent and meaning of the CC was to regulate which doesn't mean nor intend to prohibit. You are as wrong as congress and the courts when you misinterpret the original intent and meaning of the CC. Y'all abide the ideology that the constitution is a Living Document
Says who? Given the potential ambiguity of many words in the English language how do you determine the orignial meaning they were meant to convey without relying on intent to provide the proper context?
The original intent of the hammer was to pound nails -- does that mean it cannot be used for any other purpose?
You don't own or use tools much, and haven't ever had to rely on them for you livelihood, have you?
Stop it, they're salivating.