I'm glad that you mentioned the Commerce Clause. Here's the poop on the Commerce Clause which I have mentioned in related threads. Please bear with some historical material which leads up to the Supreme Court's PC interpretation of that clause.
When Thomas Jefferson argued against Alexander Hamilton's proposal for a national bank, the delegates to the Con-Con having previously rejected the idea, Jefferson wrote the following about Congress's limited Congress Clause powers. Using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Jefferson had clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
In fact, Justice John Marshall later reflected on Jefferson words when Marshall clarified the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in Gibbons v. Ogden. Note that Marshall used health laws, of all things, as an example in his clarification.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphases added)." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So how did Congress manage to overstep its limited Commerce Clause powers? We can thank Constituton-ignoring socialist FDR for that one.
More specifically, when FDR was first elected, he evidently encouraged Congress to make legislation which used the General Welfare Clause (1.8.1) as an excuse to lay taxes on intrastate agricultural production. The problem is that a majority of Constitution-respecting justices found Congress's agricultural tax unconstitutional in United States v. Butler. In Butler the justices clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate or tax for agricultural issues.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden."--Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.
Given that the SC struck down several FDR-inspired "New Deal" programs which usurped 10th Amendment protected state powers, spoiled brat FDR subsequently made a fool of himself by trying to do the following. FDR is infamous for working to stack the Supreme Court with additional justices who would have presumably seen things his way and gave the green light to constitutionally indefensible federal taxing and spending programs inspired by FDR.
As a side note to FDR making a fool of himself by trying to stack the Supreme Court, given that the Founding States made the Constitution amendable, I don't know why FDR didn't simply encourage Congress to comply with the Constituton's Article V by petitioning the states for constitutonal amendments granting Congress new powers.
Getting back to clown FDR, the problem is that regardless if FDR's "Plan A" to get the Supreme Court under his thumb failed, FDR's "Plan B" worked. More specifically, hungry, constitutionally-ignorant voters reelected FDR enough times that FDR was able to nominate a justice majority who saw things his way.
And when another agriculture-related case came along, FDR's activist justices seized the opportunity to "amend" the Commerce Commerce clause from the bench since a previous generation of justices had closed the door to tax-hungry Congress in the Butler case when Congress tried to base additional tax revenues on the General Welfare clause.
Ignoring not only the Court's previous clarification that Congress has no express constitutonal authority to address intrastate agriculture, but also ignoring the clarifications of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers by Jefferson and Marshall, using terms like "some concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR's puppet justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit (emphases added) in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."--Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR's state power-ignoring justices had reduced the 10th Amendment to a wives' tale, imo, in order to allow corrupt Congress to use the Commerce Clause as an excuse to lay constitutonally indefensible federal taxes, taxes based on .
Are we having fun yet?
FDR's state power-ignoring justices had reduced the 10th Amendment to a wives' tale, imo, in order to allow corrupt Congress to use the Commerce Clause as an excuse to lay constitutonally indefensible federal taxes, taxes based on usurped state powers.