I agree, the definition of “regulate” applies to Foreign Nations and Indian Tribes but the “intent” behind those is different than the Among the several States part.
In Nullification, Tom Woods quotes Madison explaining “Among the several states’ …grew out of the abuses of the power by importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative ad preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government” pg.27
That intention falls in line with the following clauses, I think.
In Art 1 Sec 9 “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”
and in Art 1 Sec 10 “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws”
My question was probably a little convoluted. It seemed that in this dissent they point to the definition but disregard the intent. Which they came to the right conclusion that the bill is not constitutional under the commerce clause but for the wrong reason. That bothered me.
I agree, it would be easier if they just stated that “there should be a free trade zone among the States,” that would have solved a lot.
I apologize, I don’t even know what I wanted answered. I withdraw my concern 😉