That’s very interesting.
Consider Thomas Jefferson’s clarification of Congress’s Commerce Clause 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.
Also, using terms like “some concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of the 10th Amendment 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 [emphases added] in the status of statehood. 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.
In order for FDR’s thug justices to find (ahem) new powers for corrupt Congress in the Commerce Clause, they not only had to ignore Jefferson and Supreme Court case precedent concerning that clause, but they also had to water the 10th Amendment down to the extent that it was nothing more than a wives’ tale imo.