The supreme court ruled otherwise sometime in the 1930s (or 40s) - They ruled against a farmer that sold all his crop locally, never crossing state line.
This is the camel nose that began a lot of mischief in our nation.
Exactly, and they did so by invoking a definition of that farmer that was CORPORATE, and so gave them the jusrisdiction to invoke corporate interpretations and applications of the Constitution, which they in turn corporatized by invoking the 14th Amendment, which used a different application of the word "person" that was resolved by the courts as meaning a corporate representative - the SAME definition which is still used by the statutes and courts for the word "person" today.
To paraphrase the last bit in my last long post: when, as the Court essentially now holds, no one had the original right that Marshall spoke of so that the principals contained within the Constitution as Ratified are permanent: it’s anything goes.
They can even call an imposition imposed for not obeying a federal regulation a “tax” rather than a “fine” as is bothy logical and proper. But, hey, if it’s a tax then there’s no right either to not incriminate yourself or to receive due process....