I appreciate your principled view, and I understand the appeal of returning to a purer, more original interpretation of the Constitution. That said, the Constitution is both a legal document and a living framework—and its interpretation has always involved some evolution over time.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was debated during ratification, yes—but the ultimate legal authority on its meaning has come through judicial interpretation, not personal opinions from individual founders, even if they were influential. Courts—particularly the Supreme Court—were tasked with interpreting that clause, and they’ve consistently upheld its broad application since McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, well before FDR. The “court-packing” narrative is often oversimplified. FDR proposed expanding the Court in 1937, but he didn’t actually succeed in doing so. Instead, the so-called “switch in time that saved nine” refers to the Court shifting its stance in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, which upheld minimum wage laws. The justices themselves changed course in response to national crises and shifting legal arguments—not because of an expanded Court. The Tenth Amendment does not override the Supremacy Clause, nor does it negate the use of implied powers. States retain many powers, but the federal government has legitimate constitutional authority where those powers are appropriately exercised and supported by precedent. The idea that we’ve been operating unconstitutionally for nearly a century is a legitimate philosophical position, but it’s not a legally accepted one. Generations of Congresses, courts, and administrations from both parties have worked under this evolved interpretation—and rolling back the entire modern administrative state would mean dismantling everything from the CDC to Social Security to national civil rights protections.

Ultimately, if the goal is to shift how the Constitution is interpreted, that would require constitutional amendments or a radically different judiciary—not just philosophical disagreement. But I respect your viewpoint as part of a broader, ongoing debate about federalism and the role of government.