The Commerce Clause would present a serious challenge to MTG. On the one hand, the American single market would be unthinkable without it, and even MTG probably wouldn’t want to give up the corresponding economic benefits. If you doubt that, think about the products you consumed today and count the number that were produced locally. On the other hand, the Commerce Clause provided most of the authority for the vast expansion of federal powers over the last century–including the civil rights legislation that is so loathed by the right–and would create an obstacle to state regulation of woke capital. How would MTG deal with this conundrum?
My best guess is that she would keep it in place, but require a stronger nexus between interstate commerce and any new proposed federal legislation. That would make more sense under current conditions than going back to the nineteenth century legal distinction between “commerce” and “production.”