[inquest]

All you've proven with those is that federal power is supreme, where federal power is constitutional. That still doesn't even come close to making your casee as to the constitutional (non-)limits of that power. The fact remains, it has clearly crossed the limit when it's regulating private transactions within a state. Otherwise, the commerce clause would have just said commerce, without any qualifiers about being among the several states, with the Indian tribes, etc.

[Rockingham]

Your reasoning is unpersuasive because other evidence is decisively to the contrary and the term used ("among the several states") was likely meant to avoid any implication that Congress could single out and regulate commerce in one state alone. In addition, the Framers' drafting and debate on the Constitution did not involve detailed consideration of the specific term of the commerce clause power.

[Rockingham]

Not so, if you read the Constitution in the context of the times. Much of what you argue is a kind of deconstructionism that demands that the Framers write according to your usage and that of the modern era instead of their own.