[Ken H]

But certainly the federal government has the right to control commerce the crosses national boundaries, since it explicitly has the right to regulate interstate commerce AND to deal with other nations.

Agreed. The problem is that Wickard and its progeny opened the floodgates for fedgov to control just about every domestic concern at the expense of the Tenth Amendment.

Simple yes/no question: Do you think Wickard is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause?

[dcwusmc]

I’ll answer that for you... since the original intent of the founders was solely to ensure a level playing field on trade between the States (to prevent, for example, Maryland from imposing a tariff on goods coming from Pennsylvania to either sell in Maryland or continue on to Virginia), that would be a “NO” for sure!

[CharlesWayneCT]

I have no idea. I’m not a constitutional scholar. If I read the decision, I’d have an opinion, but I haven’t.

The commerce clause seems like one heck of a loophole, but as with the “federal crimes” discussion, I don’t think there is a single justice on the court that would reverse the use of the commerce clause for federal regulations. So it’s another windmill to tilt at, unless you really think you could replace 5 justices on the court with new justices that are MORE CONSERVATIVE than the most conservative on the court today.