Not a "gotcha game". You say one thing, then you say something else. On what basis do you make these decisions that is so fluid? Are you trying to discern the intent of the Founders, or are you searcing for emanations and penumbras to justify a political agenda? Your methodology doesn't seem to match your objective.
The power is indeed vague. But it is clear that it is broad.
And what leads you to believe that the breadth is in reference to the purposes in may be applied to, rather than the range of remedies available in pursuit of the stated purpose?
Because there is no such "stated purpose" in his quote. I looked for it. It's not there. There's no restriction.
If you found one in Marshall's words somewhere, quote it.
You know, this is pretty hypocritical coming from someone who uses a quote from Clarence Thomas and applies it across the board to a number of commerce clause cases of all shapes and sizes, despite the fact that his quote came from one specific unrelated case.
But Marshall's quote can't, huh?