Amazing! Don't you think you should have at least a basic understanding of the FDR era decision that trampled the Tenth Amendment, and opened the floodgates for an expanded fedgov?
So it's another windmill to tilt at, unless you really think you could replace 5 justices on the court with new justices that are MORE CONSERVATIVE than the most conservative on the court today.
You must be unaware of Justice Clarence Thomas's numerous writings on the Wickard Commerce Clause. Here's a good place to begin your education:
J. Thomas, United States v. Lopez, 1995
-snip-
Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the "substantial effects" test should be reexamined.
-snip-
Thomas is the closest thing we have on the court to your position, and he is only there about half the time. I believe he was on the right side of the California case.
And no, I don’t think I should know an old court case by the name of the participants. If you told me what it said, I’d give you an opinion, but I am not a computer and I don’t know everything.