At a glance, yes. My interest is first and foremost in controlling and reducing federal power, which has stretched far beyond its intended limits--and that includes the commerce clause, which was a very simple and uncontroversial power as understood at the time. It did not empower Congress to regulate all things related to commerce. I laid that out in my essay. What belongs to the states should be left to the states.
Bigun raises a good point, and it speaks to Cboldt's contention that Congress is the originator of extraconstitutional activity, in that, even when it is the court, through its appellate role, that is expanding the meaning of the Constitution through judicial activism, the Congress, possessing regulatory power over them in this regard, is an aider and abettor. I'll have to think on it. It's a good point.
However, that bolded section appears to only apply to appellate jurisdiction. That means they could still expand the powers of the national government in all cases where they possess original jurisdiction.
My point was not that. It's that Congress itself is the instigator of the over-reach against the Commerce Clause. It is the Congressional enactment that is offensive to the constitution in the first place.
I don't contend that Congress might or should "regulate" the Courts into a position that causes the courts to lack jurisdiction over a Congressional enactment that over-reaches the Commerce Clause.
Again, you were looking for an accountable body, where accountability was through voter reaction. That exists today, as Congress is accountable to the voter for passing laws that exceed the Commerce Clause. If Congress takes those laws off the books, there won't be anything for an unaccountable Court to uphold.