[tacticalogic]

You are gliding over some interpretative problems that from time to time put originalists such as Scalia and Thomas and others of mostly like mind on opposite sides of a specific issue.

There's way too much chasm between the writings of Madisn and Story and the concrete reality of what the New Deal Commerce Clause has produced for me to buy that this is just quibbling over some interpretive details.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's a duck, and this duck has a name - usurpation. Sophistry isn't going to pretty it up any.

[Rockingham]

Yet there is a correspondence between Gibbons v. Ogden and the New Deal commerce clause cases. Rend your garments over Wickard and Raich if you must, but you ought to include a curse against Gibbons v. Ogden from 1824 as well. And, I submit, you ought to recognize that the case for a restrictive view of the commerce clause is not as persuasive as it might be without Gibbons v. Ogden.