So, given that about 10 constitutional principles collide in this one, which do you think is the position that a "strict construtionist" should take?
The 10th amendment. This issue is not discussed in any way shape or form in the constitution, and should thus be left to the states.
Are the Feds acting in accordance with the original intent of the Commerce Clause, in you view?
"So, given that about 10 constitutional principles collide in this one,..."
Which ones? I'm no scholar, but I don't see where the constitution addresses this at all.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
There is only one answer. Which I really don't expect Justice Roberts to adhere to
That's the problem with using the Court's decision in this case to judge Roberts, or any of the other Justices, even Stevens, by the decision in this case.