Does the 'Aggregate Effects' doctrine under Gonzales v Raich expand federal prosecution powers beyond the original constitutional limits of the Commerce Clause, and have lower courts misapplied this doctrine to intrastate activities under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)?

Does the "Aggregate Effects" doctrine under Gonzales v Raich , 545 US 1 (2005) expand federal prosecution powers beyond the original limits designated by the United States Constitution under the Commerce Clause? Have the Lower Courts misapplied the "Aggregate Effects" doctrine under Gonzales v Raich , to 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), where intrastate challenges by Gonzales v Raich and other case law were denied relief where the statute specifically mentions intrastate activities, such as the Controlled Substances Act in Gonzales v Raich ? Do ea_._Cong r_ess ...have. the —Con-s-ti-tut iona 1 — authori-t-y to-r egu-l-ate purely intrastate activity including widely available internet content when there is no economic impact, under a standard set by this Court in United States y Morrison , 528 US 598 (2000)? Under Title 18, U.S.C. § 2251(a), is there proper Fair Notice, as set forth by this Court in Fasulo v United States , 272 U.S. 620 (1926); that a crime of purely intrastate production of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, of child pornography, was defined by Congress as a federal criminal offense? (See