The Commerce Clause has been the crutch for granting enormous power to the Feds for years. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that "issues" are no longer viewed through a constitutional lense, but rather "social or pseudo moral" one. Under this framework, it seems constutional arguments are stretched to fit arguments far, far outside the text. This allows for the implmentation of ideas swirling in the public at the time. We call this policy, and that ought to be left to the legislature, and, in part, to the executive. While I find medical marijuana usage unconvincing, it can't be dimissed through the commerce clause. Likewise, while I find the denial of patronage at a private hotel for racial reasons morally abhorrent, I don't see a provision in the Commerce Clause that allows the federal government to prohibit it.
I suppose one could argue that racism is so unsatisfactory that any means to prevent it are good. Many anti-abortionists, such as myself, have thought about such arguments. But it is difficult to see the founding documents pillaged in such ways. Federalism has been in decline for some time. One example of this: If Ohio were to remove the E-Check program, which is monstrously ineffective or were to lower the legal alcohol consumption age, the feds would pull all highway money. My opinion: take the loss of federal money and cut state spending to afford it. Not because I prefer dirty air or teenage drunks, but because Ohio, and others, should not have to follow broad federal mandates.
