[JumpCrisscross]

> when I mention rolling back the interstate commerce clause one of their main go to is that they're afraid I will destroyed the CRA and that's why they can't do it

I'll be honest, I've literally never seen this argument in any hall of power. And I know quite a few folks who believe in overturning Wickard.

The CRA, as currently interpreted, is more than fine on equal-protection grounds.

[mothballed]

Overturning of CRA of 1875 ruled equal protection under 14th amendment doesn't bind private actors, that's why the CRA of 1964/68 depending on expanded ICC. The equal protection amendments (basically the 14th) of relevance haven't changed since the overturning of the 1875 CRA.

  The Reconstruction era ended with the resolution of the 1876 presidential election, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was the last federal civil rights law enacted until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled in the Civil Rights Cases that the public accommodation sections of the act were unconstitutional, saying Congress was not afforded control over private persons or corporations under the Equal Protection Clause. Parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were later re-adopted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, both of which cited the Commerce Clause as the source of Congress's power to regulate private actors.[]

of particular note: were later re-adopted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, both of which cited the * Commerce Clause as the source of Congress's power to regulate private actors.

* my note: now expanded

[] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875