Such as the noted libtard Alexander Hamilton
That doesn't surprise me. Read it sometime, along with US v. Butler.
Still arguing from authority, I see, since you have neither logic nor Constitution on your side.
The fact of the matter is that both Hamilton and Madison, who disagreed on just about everything, agreed that the enumeration of specific powers to the Congress in the Constitution meant that Congressional power was limited to only those areas, and that it defied logic (as it does) to enumerate powers if, as some falsely claim (you) Congressional powers have no limits.
Thomes Jefferson, noted in one of his inaugural addresses that the Constitution does not authorize the Congress to spend federal money on public education. He therefore petitioned Congress to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution authorizing same. Congress agreed. Congress agreed that there was no authorization, and they neither passed an amendment nor spent the money.
Because Congressional power is limited.
Watch me blow your mind. Stick with me, I know it will be tough.
Arguing from authority: Stating your stance on something and then pointing out that an authority figure agreed with your stance.
This type of argument can be flawed, because it assumes that the authority figure is right.
Oh, good. YOu can find the defition of logic jargon on line.
Can you find the Constitution on line?
Here's what's happening here:
You're arguing that someone else said up is down, so spilled drinks land on the ceiling. Since no one walks on the ceiling, it must be okay.
I can see what you're doing.
I might not like the decisions in Butler or Wickard, but they are the law as it stands and aren't likely to be overturned anytime soon.
You LOVE the false decision in Butler.
And no, it's not the law.
Laws are written by legislatures and signed by executives.
What you just called a "law" is a judicial decision invalidating Constitutional law.