[JohnKSa]

That the authority of congress can be extended beyond that commerce is illustrated by the holding in Wickard...

The argument in Wickard explains how intrastate production falls under the commerce clause. It doesn't "extend it".

If that were not true, the Supreme Court would have, instead of agreeing unanimously that the prosecution was Constitutional, disagreed and explained why Wickard was an overstep and not within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

I mean, you can certainly hold the personal opinion that they got it wrong, but that's all it is--personal opinion. By definition, their unanimous agreement that Wickard was a constitutional prosecution, demonstrates that it does not extend the powers of Congress beyond the power of the commerce clause which allows them to regulate interstate commerce.

Yet, no part of the Court’s reasoning equates production with commerce.

However you want to word it.

The quote from Jackson goes on to state that to be under the power of Congress, an activity must "exert a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce".

To claim that production is not a necessary condition, you must come up with some way to explain how an exclusively intrastate activity could "exert a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" without changing national supply.

I claim that production/change in national supply is a necessary condition and gave you a chance to demonstrate that it is not. Rather than taking up the challenge, you chose to argue semantics.

That isn’t what the government would claim under a Wickard analysis; they would instead claim an effect on interstate commerce.

I wondered how you would avoid answering the question.

Ok, let's try it again, with a wording alteration that eliminates your objection but changes nothing material to the construct.

Let's say that I am engaged in the production items/material for my own personal use. The items/material are legal to produce, own, possess and use/consume under all state and federal law. The items/material never cross state lines, they are never bought or sold, in fact they never leave my possession. The federal government claims that they can regulate my activities (including criminally prosecuting me) under the power of the interstate commerce clause.

Provide a rationale that would convince the Supreme Court to unanimously agree that my activity falls within the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause.

Since you believe that a change in national supply is not integral/necessary to the argument, you may not use that argument in your explanation.