>>3
No, what he's saying is, the laws that are being passed which would have normally been interpreted as unconstitutional (Supreme Court has the power of judicial review) are being upheld on grounds such as the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) because the ICC mandates that congress have full authority on controlling commerce. The kicker comes in when we have an open definition for commerce. What is Interstate Commerce? Well, even if a business is 100% isolated in the most backwater of backwater communities, it still serves as part of interstate commerce because of something insignificant like the napkins they use or the commodities they use from out of state considers them a part of Interstate Commerce.
All of the New Deal programs of Roosevelt were upheld in the Supreme Court because of the ICC. Wicker v. Filburn is an example, wherein it was decided that a farmer who was growing his own wheat to cut the costs of buying wheat (growing your own for free was illegal) it was determined he broke the law and the law was upheld due to the ICC, because the farmer not consuming wheat from the national market by action did effect interstate commerce, even though he or the wheat never crossed state lines.
Anyways, the ICC is used as leverage in a lot of laws, specifically business related laws. The OP is probably grumpy about that because it means he has to adhere to national laws which would have had no bearing without the ICC and its contemporary interpreters.