Some of these things are highly specious "interpretations", others are necessary consequences of the text. Since you've provided nothing from either the text or original intent to defend your position on "substantial effects", it pretty much would have to fall into the former category.
Did the U.S. Supreme Court categorize them this way, or is this simply your opinion?
"Since you've provided nothing from either the text or original intent to defend your position on "substantial effects"
What, legislating an intrastate activity (using the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause) that has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating is not a necessary consequence of the text of the Commerce Clause? You're saying that if Congress is constitutionally regulating interstate airline traffic, each state should be allowed to regulate purely intrastate airline traffic -- setting air traffic routes, radio frequencies, landing patterns, etc., and that Congress has no authority over this activity?