Property rights are fundamental. The Endangered Species Act supposedly derives its authority to curtail private property rights without compensation by treaty.
(2) This case ruled that the 10th protected an American from a law passed under the auspices of the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention," a Senate ratified treaty. So no again.
Same problem. I wouldn't take away too much on this ruling, as this looks to me like a Court that can't keep its story straight, treating issues of Federalism in a manner similar to "selective incorporation." That the author treats Wickard v. Filburn as anything less than an abomination shows how dangerously far we've slid as regards the latitude of the court.
Property rights are fundamental. Unfortunately, they have been so eroded by the left over the past few decades that they are no longer treated that way.
This ruling might be a wedge that can be used to start to reclaim them.
Because of the recent 2nd Amendment cases, those rights are now on firmer ground with the SCOTUS.