I didn’t remember so I did a quicky review of these cases.
And its no wonder that I didn’t remember. The case opinions are a pile of sophistry imo, the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers now wrongly muddied by politically correct Supreme Court case precedent.
At this point in time, I have not found any references in the cases that you referenced to the excerpts that I posted.
I’m of the opinion that the post-FDR era law schools are basically ignoring constitutional history before FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wrongly (imo) decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor in 1942.
More specifically, although I have seen token references in post-Wickard cases to cases where previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the fed’s constitutionally limited powers, it seems that the water now falls off of the edge of the state sovereignty-ignoring Supreme Court’s “flat earth” interpretations of the Constitution in cases decided after Wickard which test the fed’s limited powers.
Finally, regarding the integrity of the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution, please consider the following.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.
"The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.