Does the 'Aggregate Effects' doctrine under Gonzales v Raich expand federal prosecution powers beyond the original constitutional limits of the Commerce Clause?

1. 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? 2. Have the Lower Courts misapplied the "Aggregate Effects" doctrine under Gonzales v Raich , to 18 U.S.C. § 225 1 (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 ? ; 3— . -have, .the •••t0--reg-ul-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 v Morrison , 528 US 598 (2000)? r 4-. 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? 5. Are the Congressional Findings of the "Child Pornography Pervention Act" of 2006 accurate today as to online content freely available and anonymously, since technology has advanced, and. there is no economic nex.is for receipt or possession? 6. Does anonymously entering into the onlina content of child i i pornography, and the receipt and possession of images that are widely available for free with the click of a mouse, meet the definition of commerce': buying, selling, bartering or trading, or does it have any economic impact upon any market? Where does the trail of Interstate Commerce end, and thus Congress 1 Constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations , and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."?