[mrsmith]

Seeing such arrogant distortion of the Bill of Rights brought me into this thread. Though the Founders opinions mean nothing to many here I think some suffer from mere ignorance and provided the Founders' views for them to contrast with the views of the proudly ignorant.

My avocation is early US Constitutional history. The Commerce Clause problems didn't arise until later than my useful knowledge extends.
There was an intriguing early mandatory "national health insurance" of sorts for seamen that was passed in the second congress, I believe, which might show a basis for a historical limit to the Commerce Clause (would it include seamen who only sailed within a state or not?). But sadly I haven't run across much on it.

[Ken H]

My avocation is early US Constitutional history. The Commerce Clause problems didn't arise until later than my useful knowledge extends.

The Commerce Clause is certainly a part of early US constitutional history, and the results of the substantial effects doctrine are well known. (see post #343 and the opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas which I quoted in part.)

I'd bet you know more about the history of the Commerce Clause and its original meaning than 99.99% of the population and probably more than most people on this forum.

I'm surprised that you think you are not informed enough to say whether or not you agree with Justice Thomas.