The Constitution, as any law, should be interpreted and applied as written and originally understood and intended.
If the wording is clear then you go with it. There’s no genuine issue that the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8 Cl. 3, is about interstate commerce - or business or commerce between the states. So that leaves out business within states, only that between the states. One must ask, why regulation between the states?
If the wording is or can be seen as ambiguous, as with any law, then to obtain the proper meaning and intent you research what the framers and ratifiers meant and intended.
A good starting point in interpreting and applying the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence which has persuasive authority and frames the Constitution. The D of I shows a general intent of the Framers and Founders of our country for freedom and independence from government coercion and thus to create an effective but very limited government. They saw government as necessary to protect the States from outside invasion, but evil if unlimited and unrestrained - the reason for the American Revolution.
From there, the “Federalist Papers”, written at the time of the creation and ratification of the Constitution to explain the intent of contents of the Constitution is a good source. Regarding interstate commerce, the Federalist Papers speak in favor of “unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves” and “free circulation” of goods. So, yes, the purpose and intent of the Commerce Clause was to allow unhindered commerce between the states. There is no evidence of an intent to give the feds unlimited power over all interstate communications, transportations, and commerce.
When looking at a clause that could be seen as ambiguous, always use the original understanding and intent of LIMITED government to see what was meant. If you are a Patriot and lover of America and freedom, you won’t have a problem with that. Otherwise, you are showing support for the current 80%+ unconstitutional portion of our mostly outlaw government.
"While federal safety regulation of airlines is arguably a good idea, it remains that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the post-17th Amendment ratification, unconstitutionally big federal government the specific powers to do a whole lot of things that it is now doing...,
I agree with that statement. However, you go on to state:
...no power to dictate the qualifications of airline pilots for example.
I strongly disagree with that statement.
Following is my rationale:
In your response #60, paragraph 2, you state in part:
...There’s no genuine issue that the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8 Cl. 3, is about interstate commerce - or business or commerce between the states....
IMHO, the word "regulate" means the same today as it did in 1787.
In para 5 of your response, you quote the "Federalist papers":
Federalist Papers speak in favor of “unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves” and “free circulation” of goods.
My interpretation is that Congress should pass laws, rules, and/or regulations that promote and not hinder “unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves” and “free circulation” of goods.
The Federalist papers do not redefine the word "regulate".
Exmple: Aviation is inherently dangerous. Running out of fuel at 30,000 feet is more dangerous than running out of fuel on an interstate highway. An FAA rule on fuel minimums (10% or 20 minutes reserve) makes sense to me.
Airlines that fly internationally and/or fly between the states must follow the laws, rules and regulations established by the FAA.
So, I guess it boils down to "What about an airline that only flies within a state?"
Below is a link that contains Texas code "AVIATION":
If you want to research the aviation laws in the other 49 states, press on.
I have heartburn with your final paragraph in #61 which I will respond to in a PM.