It depends on how literal you mean to be.
If you believe the original intent of freedom of the press meant the freedom of newspapers, then the original intent is certainly irrelevant, isn't it? Or not?
I mean, it says "the press", not "the media" or "the fourth estate". So maybe you think the original intent of the Founding Fathers, newspapers, is the only medium to which the first amendment applies? You would.
The original intent is only relevant if it was meant to preclude any other interpretation. The phrase "shall not be infringed" is a good example.
But in this case, here we have Madison himself saying, "Yes, you may use the commerce clause that way, even though that's not what we originally intended."
Based on that, how can you conclude that the "original intent" is relevant? In this case, it's not.
No, what we have is you interpreting Madison to be saying that.
A claw hammer was intended to pound and pull nails. Some people will use it for things it was not intended to be used for, and others will not. The difference basically comes down to a respect for the tool. You are advocating a philosophy that says no such respect is due the Constitution.
That brings us back full-circle to the statement from you, at #25, that initially prompted my response. You said, "Do you believe the Founding Fathers would give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet allow the individual states to undermine and subvert their regulatory efforts?"
Here you were invoking what you thought to be original intent. I said to you that your understanding of their intent is wrong, and that therefore you shouldn't rely on it in support of your argument. You're now saying that original intent is irrelevant, so that still confirms my statement: You shouldn't rely on it in support of your argument.