[Rockingham]

You are mistaken in seeing commerce clause jurisprudence as representing a falling away from a clear limitation on federal power in the Constitution as originally written and understood. The Constitution does not provide a bright line limitation in the text of the commerce clause. Neither are the Federalist Papers or Madison's Notes of much help.

At best, it can be said that by implication, in the seldom expressed understanding of the Framers of the Constitution, and in early commerce clause cases, purely intrastate commerce was regarded as beyond the scope of the federal commerce clause power. In practice, the distinction between intrastate and interstate commerce has changed according to how they are defined and the circumstances of the era.

If not for the medical marijuana issue, I doubt that the federal commerce clause would be of much interest to anyone except legal scholars and a handful of practitioners. It is not the stuff that makes for civil wars.

[tacticalogic]

At best, it can be said that by implication, in the seldom expressed understanding of the Framers of the Constitution, and in early commerce clause cases, purely intrastate commerce was regarded as beyond the scope of the federal commerce clause power. In practice, the distinction between intrastate and interstate commerce has changed according to how they are defined and the circumstances of the era.

The Constitution transferred a limited and enumerated set of powers from the States to the federal government. The scope and limits of that transfer of power was fixed at the time of transfer as being what the power was understood to be by those who wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Unless and until it is altered by amendment, those powers remain as the were at the time of the original grant of power.

What is it about that you don't understand?