RE: Define the interstate commerce clause as it should have been
Whose definition should take precedence?
Interstate commerce should be defined as the actual exchange of goods or services that crosses state lines, nothing else. Presently interstate commerce is considered anything that might influence the stream of interstate commerce, that is, everything. Thus since what a pizzeria pays its delivery drivers influences how much it can pay for the cheese it buys from another state it is considered interstate commerce. This is the basis for federal minimum wage laws and other regulations on purely local businesses.
Its not like we are defining the meaning of tea leaves. The original debate and intent is quite clear. The intent was to prevent the application of tariffs to commerce between the states. In what universe does that morph into a Department of Education?
I think first dibs on that goes to the author, James Madison:
“Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.” – Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.