That has been the interpretation by the Supreme Court and why driving is a privilege, not a right.

The Constitution doesn't give any rights. All rights are inherent and pre-date the Constitution.

The Constitution does however specifically guarantee some rights by specifically prohibiting the government from infringing on them.

The FAA is unconstitutional.

And what is "ludicrous" is to think that standards cannot exist without government.

Who said anything about anarchy?

Right. Care to cite some references for that revelation?

So just how in your little utopia would you regulate this aviation thing we are involved in?

This is the third poster who has recently asserted that FAA regulation is inherently unconstitutional...or at least the third username.
Further explanation of the Commerce Clause will probably do no good.

Sounds like you studied criminal law. What exactly does that have to do with the FAA?

Depends on the parties to the standards in question... lowest common denominator. Ours is too low. Any human civilization's LCD is probably too low. Unless you want try eugenics...

The Commerce Clause is not an expansive power delegated to the federal government. It is actually a lot more humble than people have construed it to be. The Commerce Clause, when it was written, was designed to "make commerce regular" in other words turning all of the states in to a free trade zone so that tariffs couldn't be imposed on people or goods going from Virginia to New Hampshire for instance.

The word "regulate" at the time meant "to make regular" although that meaning is lost today.

Article 1 Sec 8 coupled with the 9th and 10th Amendments. Although a legitimate argument could be made that flying falls under admiralty law.

Regardless though, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate travel in the way that it does.