I’d always thought the switch occurred after the FDR proposal was defeated. But whichever, we still have economic reality and the court’s reality being different.

“By your logic, EVERYTHING is interstate commerce, and the states might as well close up shop.”

Just about everything is, yup. But why the states would close shop, I don’t know. States right now regulate things that are quite clearly interstate.

I don’t see why its relevant that it be ‘disrupted.’ The power is to regulate commerce. Perhaps you’re thinking of the ‘dormant commerce clause.’

If a business wants to create a morning after pill, ship it, distribute it, or sell it at its many stores throughout the US, that’s certainly in interstate commerce. And necessary and proper to regulating that (whether it is to allow it or to ban it) is the regulation of the consumer purchase of the drug (whether we are prohibiting it or allowing it). Same with other services and goods associated with abortion.

“And while you’re at it, perhaps you’d care to explain how “interstate commerce” changed so radically during FDR’s tenure as to justify the shift that occurred then, not now.”

That the courts realized reality is that many things are interstate commerce, or necessary and proper to its regulation, during FDR’s reign doesn’t mean that’s when this reality came to be. It just means that’s when the four horsemen of the apocalypse lost their majority.

Sure it does. Nowadays, and much more than during the founding, lots of industries and activity exist in interstate commerce. And certainly lots of things exist once you include what is ‘necessary and proper’ to regulate this interstate commerce.

‘. If affirming or denying anyone’s “right” to bang some guy she barely knows without protection, and then kill the kid off without the inconvenience of having to cross a state line is “interstate commerce,”’

See, it seems like you’re letting your views on abortion (and who gets them) get in the way here. Why are you still talking about ‘rights’? I’m here saying congress can simply legislate on this topic, ‘right’ or not, providing access or denying it.

I think few if any things are outside the scope of interstate commerce — or rather, commerce “among the several states” — and what is necessary and proper to regulate that. That’s not the fault of the founders or of the courts. That’s a feature of our modern economy. Of the pervasive and borderless nature of commerce.

No need to answer. You gave the answer away in Comment 86, when you called on Congress to mandate everything you think is “good policy,” whether it has anything to do with foreign or interstate commerce or not. Which would be fine, if you were arguing for a constitutional amendment rather than simply urging Congress to unilaterally declare the country the United State of America.

Is this just another variation of the “Officer Krupke” defense?

Its not really ‘whatever will let slip.” I’ve made a very simple case that regulating abortion is a regulation of a national industry. A regulation of interstate commerce. Lots of things are interstate commerce, or necessary and proper to regulate interstate commerce, these days. Blame modernity, not the courts.