Commerce clause doctrine: the definitive account

Many of you may be confused about the arcane manner of commerce clause jurisprudence, as it appears that the advocates of “states’ rights” on the Supreme Court will mysteriously abdondon this purported principle when confronted with a less-than-congenial policy outcome. Surprising, isn’t it? Fortunately, fafblog explains the fine doctrinal points via an illuminating Platonic dialogue so you can make your own judgment:

FAF.: Oh my. I am afraid I will have to confiscate your sandwich Giblets.
GIBS.: What! Bhahe! You just said!
FAF.: It isn’t me takin your sandwich Gilbets it is the government. That sandwich is a Class-3 Controlled Sandwich.
GIBS.: Nuts to the government! Giblets is the only government that matters here an all sandwiches are permitted! Eat what thou wilt is the whole of the law!
FAF.: But the federal government gets to regulate stuff even in local Gibletsy governments because it gets to regulate interstate commerce.
GIBS.: The government is stupid! Giblets’s sandwich is not commerce, it is Giblets’s sandwich and he is going to eat it!
FAF.: But just cause you’re gonna eat the sandwich doesn’t mean it’s not commerce. How does the government know you’re not gonna do somethin commercy with your sandwich like feed it to livestock or let it have sex with a prostitute? Wouldn’t you be drivin down the price of sandwiches in the black sandwich market?
GIBS.: What if the sandwich is MARRIED to the prostitute? Or to the livestock?
FAF.: But you coulda faked your sandwich’s marriage license. Your sandwich could be livin in sin. Or worse, livin in economic activity.