[tacticalogic]

While I know it is fashionable to attack FDR

I do not attack FDR out of any sense of "fashion". When he re-interpreted the Commerce Clause, and replace the historical meaning of the word "regulate" with the more modern meaning "to control or have authority over" he caused a systemic shift in the balance of power in favor of the federal government. I firmly believe that it was a serious error to do this based on no more than creative semantics, and without the consent of the states through a constitutional amendment. It's legacy is an ever expanding federal bureaucracy, and a growing mistrust of the federal government. History records that he was advised at the time that his New Deal policies were unconstitutional without an enabling amendment, and that he basically resorted to blackmailing the USSC with the Court Packing Bill to get them to agree to his interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Desperate measures taken during desperate times are not immune to constitutional requirements.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It should be remembered that the commerce clause was inserted specifically to curb the States which had raised interference with commerce to a high art. This was the greatest impediment to Union and would have destroyed the nation unless checked.

Parts of FDR's program were found unconstitutional and parts were not. But more court time has been devoted to the commerce clause than any other aspect of the constitution.