Your interpretation of the Constitution is extreme and not consistent with current legal case law.
If you want to pout about it, you are welcome to do so
Well, how do you know what my interpretation would be. You won't answer that simple question:
Is growing food in your own backyard for your own consumption in your own home and nowhere else considered "interstate commerce" allowing the FedGov can regulate?
I am asking. You won't answer because you have deficient knowledge and you are way out of your league.
I will answer for you.
In
Wickard v. Filburn (1940s), the SCOTUS (8 of the 9 justices were appointed by commie FDR) INCORRECTLY determined that it WAS interstate commerce and the FedGov could regulate it. That Court ignored the specific limitations the Founders intended and basically expanded Interstate Commerce to mean ANYTHING Congress wants to control and NOTHING to the States.
FINALLY, that bullshit holding was overturned in the 1990s, but it took THAT LONG to correct bullshit from the commie-appointed Court. The Correct holding from the 90s Court was that if EVERYTHING is Interstate Commerce, the FedGov has NO LIMITS on power, which is CLEARLY contrary to the intent.
Now, given the CORRECT interpretation of the Commerce Clause, how should the SCOTUS interpret the General Welfare clause??? Should it mean ANYTHING Congress wants to control, or do we continue to try ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments?
Explain your answer, if you can.
.