Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of US v Lopez. The most egregious use I found of the commerce clause was Wickard v Filburn. It was a depression era ruling that said the federal government had the right to prevent a farmer on growing food on his own land to feed his livestock in opposition to a law meant to 'stabilize wheat prices' by having farmers not grow food. Ever since then I was no a fan of commerce clause. Would something like this be possible today or did US v Lopez make this impossible?

> Conversely, there is no constitutional right to /not/ get a vaccine

Doesn't it need to be framed as the government having the right to apply a medical treatment to me against my will?

I have a constitutional right to bare arms but presumably the federal government can decry that I do not have the right in certain places. Or is that not an affirmative right.

[EDIT] It appears that is what US v Lopez is about (federal restriction of guns near schools)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

> Of course, the demographics of the court has changed.

Thats a problem when the demographics of a ruling body affect rights protected by the Constitution.

Wisely the Constitution also provides remedy for when that gets too out of hand: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think one area the Constitution missed the boat is that when a politician or someone in delegated power makes a law or rule that infringes on someone’s freedom that person should be charged and punished for treason. I would think that you would see so many fewer laws a much stronger and law abiding Country.