[inquest]

My understanding of the commerce clause is that it was to preclude protective tariffs (or their equivalent) between states. Such could be considered a State transaction.

OK, I can see that. But what it seemed like MamaTexan was saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, MT) is that the clause pertained to actual commerce between the governments of two states, as if those governments themselves were parties to a transaction.

Aside from that, I can definitely respect the argument that the interstate commerce clause was not intended to be a source of federal control of any interstate transactions (governmental or non-governmental), but rather, as you say, a preventive measure against state interference in such transactions. Madison himself made the same argument.

[MamaTexan]

is that the clause pertained to actual commerce between the governments of two states, as if those governments themselves were parties to a transaction.

YES!

Because the Constitution is a legally binding contract between the political entities known as States and the 'United States' entity the States created to exercise certain enumerated powers....and the entities that entered into the contract are the ONLY ones that can be bound by it!

It's WHY we have no 'right to life' in the Constitution....because it has NOTHING to do with the People except to enumerate a few 'positive law' right in the Bill of Rights.

Also, please see post #82. :)