The Commerce Clause is certainly a part of early US constitutional history, and the results of the substantial effects doctrine are well known. (see post #343 and the opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas which I quoted in part.)
I'd bet you know more about the history of the Commerce Clause and its original meaning than 99.99% of the population and probably more than most people on this forum.
I'm surprised that you think you are not informed enough to say whether or not you agree with Justice Thomas.
I said earlier my personal opinion was that "substantial effects" was an abuse of the Constitution. However, that is in the subjective nature of "substantial"- trivial effects are actually considered substantial by judges as Rehnquist pointed out.
Bear in mind that "intrastate activities that -have such a close and substan- tial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions- are within Congress' power to regulate.", and there is a huge amount of that today while there was little in our early years. It seems it is going to be very difficult to find a bright line for the courts. I wish Justice Thomas success.