They're most likely trying to ride the Craig's List killings and that woman who drove a teenager to commit suicide. Add that to the grandstanding over NCAA football playoffs, and I wonder if there's anything at all that Congress can't mess with under the Interstate Commerce Clause?
Here's what the comment made me think: the Interstate Commerce Clause is the (supposedly) (only) Constitutional basis for virtually all major legislation for the past several decades, but what I never see is any calls for an originalist interpretation of the ICC.
Yet at the same time we are usually inundated with arguments that the 2nd Amendment was only intended to arm militias, or arguments that the Framers never anticipated automatic weapons to justify gun control.
I'm trying to distill this contradiction down to a workable premise, and I think I've got it:
Parts of the Constitution that empower the State can be constantly re-interpreted, but those parts which restrict the power of the State must remain as narrowly limited as possible.