[tacticalogic]

The author of the article neglects a whole raft of supreme court precident that was overruled by the Wickard decision.

What he's rejecting is the notion that once a constitutional principal has been violated, we are bound by precedent to go right on violating it forever.

I say "Good on him!". I'll take all of that there is to be had.

[Still Thinking]

What he's rejecting is the notion that once a constitutional principal has been violated, we are bound by precedent to go right on violating it forever.

Yeah, if the previous correct interpretation didn't even count as binding precedent, I hardly see how the wrong one can claim to be. "Stare Decisis" is Latin for "Staring at idiots".