[MamaTexan]

I’m generally not in favor of adding new amendments - but maybe we need one to restrict the Commerce Clause.

Nope, we just need to beat the feds over the head with original intent:

This principle is, if possible, still more clear, when applied to commerce "among the several States." They either join each other, in which case they are separated by a mathematical line, or they are remote from each other, in which case other States lie between them. What is commerce "among" them; and how is it to be conducted? Can a trading expedition between two adjoining States, commence and terminate outside of each? And if the trading intercourse be between two States remote from each other, must it not commence in one, terminate in the other, and probably pass through a third? Commerce among the States must, of necessity, be commerce with the States.
Gibbons v. Ogden Chief Justice Marshall

Commerce among the several States means the ENTITIES of the States, or State governments. For instance; if Hawaii and Iowa wanted to trade pineapples for corn, the federal government would arbitrate the exchange to insure it was equitable.

[dcwusmc]

Mama, as I have always understood the Commerce Clause, it was there to give FedGov the authority to tell New York that it cannot impose a duty on goods coming in for sale from Pennsylvania or a tariff on goods being transshipped from Vermont through New York into Pennsylvania. In other words, to ensure a level field with respect to State GOVERNMENT actions involving trade and protectionism at that level. The Founders NEVER intended that Congress or the Executive have authority to ban goods, to impose any sort of regulation of BUSINESS or industry whatsoever. It was only to ensure the STATES THEMSELVES played fair.

[Talisker]

Nope, we just need to beat the feds over the head with original intent... Commerce among the several States means the ENTITIES of the States, or State governments.

Bingo, MamaTexan. Frickin' Bingo.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Brilliant.