CRA under the 1875 version was found unconstitutional per the Civil Rights Cases of the Supreme court [0].
In the 1930s the executive threatened to pack the supreme court and many analogous private/intrastate commerce regulations were allowed federally by this bastardization of 'interstate commerce' by the court. Then they repassed the CRA with yet again stuff found unconstitutional, using their new version of 'interstate commerce' (everything).
The CRA objectively has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme court, and I believe it may be again under the latest generation of the court.
so, probably restating what you said, if someone wanted to pass something like that, a constitutional amendment is the better way since relying on interstate commerce clause is shaky ground... is that right interpretation?
Indeed. It should be noted that the Commerce Clause underpins most federal powers at this point. This is one of the big reasons why it's such a sacred cow - its ridiculousness is rather obvious, but all players have important things that depend on it that they don't want to risk losing.
In the 1930s the executive threatened to pack the supreme court and many analogous private/intrastate commerce regulations were allowed federally by this bastardization of 'interstate commerce' by the court. Then they repassed the CRA with yet again stuff found unconstitutional, using their new version of 'interstate commerce' (everything).
The CRA objectively has been found unconstitutional by the Supreme court, and I believe it may be again under the latest generation of the court.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases