I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and pr

I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and precedent forming which has tended to constrain state vs federal power. In fact I feel like I'd be "ignoring" more had I argued the opposite point, that states still had as significant power as they once did, since that power balance was tested as quickly as 2 years later in 1791. As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce. I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty distinctly expanded from then on.