By rejecting the "substantial effects" doctrine, and limiting Congress to "regulating" actual interstate commerce - ie real goods and services actually involved in commerce that crosses state lines.
Well, who do you think it was that came up with this "substantial effects" doctrine that you now wish the courts to reject? There isn't anything in the Constitution that says that a "substantial effects" doctrine is correct or incorrect. It was the courts themselves that came up with that doctrine! And they did so because it became clear over time that they were institutionally incapable of drawing the lines that some think are so clear. These lines were never clear and the more complex and interdependent our economy becomes, the more difficult it becomes to see the lines no matter what language you might want to add to the Constitution to make them appear more clear.
And that doesn't even address the more fundamental question of where the Supreme Court is going to find in the Constitution its delegation of power and authority to substitute its judgement for the judgement of an elected Congress on these issues. It just isn't there.
The Supreme Court has made an effort to limit Congressional power in the area of the commerce clause where the Congressional legislation interferes with some specific Constitutional limitation such as those in the Bill of Rights. And, recently, you have the decision in Lopez and another similar case. But, they aren't going to make any serious dent in Congressional power under the commerce clause.
These issues are going to continue to be decided by the people acting through their elected representatives. So, don't forget to vote!! ;-)