[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.

[Know your rights]

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.

So you're claiming that regulation of intrastate commerce is allowed by the clause so long as no one state is singled out? Have any evidence for this bizarre claim? Did the Supreme Court ever interpret the clause this way?

[inquest]

Your reasoning is unpersuasive because other evidence is decisively to the contrary

Really? Cite some of this "evidence". I'm not talking about after-the-fact SCOTUS rulings. I'm talking about evidence from the debates and discussions surrounding the drawing up and adoption of the Constitution.

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.

You really need to read up on the history of the Constitution's adoption.

While you're at it, look up the word "several". It doesn't just mean, "a whole bunch of them". It has a more specific meaning than that.