Yes, they are, but that is what the majority that voted, voted for. Not only that, they are going to make it impossible to own your, farm, business, or home. When obama gets through, all of those will belong to the government.
Please take the following chill pills sport, and quit spooking yourself.
First, using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Thomas Jefferson had clarified the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause (1.8.3) powers.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
And since you mentioned farms, please consider the following. When Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR first got into office in the 1930s, Constituton-respecting justices found some of his New Deal federal spending programs unconstitutonal, the United States v. Butler case dealing with agriculture being one example.
In fact, reflecting on Jefferson's clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, here is an excerpt from Butler where justices clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment, that Congress has no Section 8 authority to stick its big nose into intrastate agriculture.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)."--Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.
The reason that the Supreme Court now interprets Congress's Section 8-limited powers in Congress's favor is the following. Child-minded FDR had decided to get revenge on the Supreme Court for throwing out some of his New Deal programs. And regardless that he initially made of fool of himself trying to get Congress to stack the Court with additional justices, FDR was reelected enough times that he was eventually able to establish an activist justice majority who saw things his way.
In fact, when another agriculture-related case like Butler came along years later, FDR's justices seized the opportunity to essentially sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet. Ignoring what Butler justices had clarified about agriculture and the 10th Amendment, and also ignoring Jefferson's clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, using terms like "some concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of 10A after FDR's activist justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit in the status of statehood (emphasis added). Certain activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."--Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR's puppet justices had reduced 10A to a wives' tale imo.
The bottom line concerning restoring the constitutional republic is this. Patriots need to wise up to Congress's Article I, Section 8-limited powers and start using their voting muscle to force corrupt Congress back into its Section 8-limited power cage.
Finally, bear in mind that you're probaby not going to hear any of this from Fx News. I'm convinced that Section 8-ignoring Fx News is a part of the Left's propaganda machine.