We delegated the power to Congress (via the FAA) to regulate air traffic. We did not grant them the power to prohibit flying.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's it.
Exactly. They are not granted the power to prohibit commerce.
If a local activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is currently regulating, then Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause to write legislation controlling that activity.
And under the due process clause, the legislation must not unreasonably deprive people of life, liberty, or property.
Without that ability, states or individuals could undermine and subvert Congress' authority. Why even give Congress the power?
Read the preamble on why we give government power, paulsen. Pay particular attention to "securing the Blessings of Liberty".
The Commerce Clause was meant to be powerful.
But only under Constitutional restraints.
The problem lies with a Congress abusing that power.
Yet you advocate such abuses by supporting prohibitions.
The solution is for the people to send a message to Congress that we will not tolerate these intrusions.
Which is hardly accomplished by your toleration of their prohibitionary abuses.
Nor may the legislation violate any of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. The nature of an amendment, which the BoR are, is that it overrides the basic document when there is a conflict.
This principle might not apply to the CA pot laws, but it certainly does apply to firearms laws, because each one of them violated the Second Amendment.