Well, the USSC went further than that and said that it must not only have an effect on interstate commerce, it must have a substantial effect. So you do support the substantial effects reasoning. Is that correct?
Now, on the other hand, if Congress is regulating interstate commerce by banning interstate shipments of diseased livestock, then they also have authority over people doing things that physically encourage the interstate movement of diseased livestock, yes?
Or does "to regulate" not include "to ban"? Do you disagree with the statement, "Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin."
Get this through your head. Nobody here is denying that SCOTUS has a very expansive reading of the commerce clause. Citing their opinions does not advance your position in this discussion, because all it amounts to is a circular argument. Most of what follows in your post is based on that flawed premise of yours. If you want to make a point, quote the Constitution and, if necessary, the founders, and go from there.
Do you disagree with the statement, "Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin."
What I'm saying is that in order to prevent that from happening, they can not restrict the generation of said "immorality, dishonesty" or "evil or harm".