See my post #57. Between Thomas and Scalia who had the originalist position?
Criticism of the doctrine
References in more recent Court decisions have argued that "Whether or not the Founders intended this "negative" or "dormant" component to the Commerce Clause has been hotly debated." See, e.g., Tyler Pipe Indus. v. Washington State Dep't of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232, 259-65(1987) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing that Framers did not intend "negative" or "dormant" component of Commerce Clause); Itel Containers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston, 507 U.S. 60(1993) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (concurring in enforcement of dormant Commerce Clause on stare decisis grounds); FELIX FRANKFURTER, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE UNDER MARSHALL, TANEY AND WAITE 12 (1937) (describing absence of comment during drafting and ratification of Constitution regarding possible negative implications of Commerce Clause); Albert S. Abel, The Commerce Clause in the Constitutional Convention and in Contemporary Comment, 25 MINN.L.REV. 432, 493 (1941) (arguing that historical evidence "supports the view that, as to the restricted field which was deemed at the time to constitute regulation of commerce, the grant of power to the federal government presupposed the withdrawal of authority pari passu from the states."). Justice Scalia has taken the lead in among Justices in advocating the proposition that the Dormant Commerce Clause has no textual basis and that it is not consistent with original intent.
Both Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia[4] and Clarence Thomas[5] have rejected the notion of a dormant commerce clause.
___________________________________________________
It is my understanding that Thomas and Scalia are very close in their understanding of the original intent of the Constitution.
Sorry I missed your first post to me.