Your statement is correct..however-
Part of the misinterpretation of the commerce clause is that the 'commerce between the States' is JUST THAT.
The political entities known as 'states'...NOT the physical geographical location.
Like if the State of Texas purchased pineapples from the State of Hawaii, the federal government would have the enumerated authority to see that the purchase met weight/size/measurement requirements so no State was cheated.
It has nothing to do with the political, imaginary borders between the States!
Congress has also extended its reach by making receipt of federal funds by the State for roads, welfare, education etc. conditional upon the States accepting their agendas and incorporating certain provisions into State programs.
And political blackmail is STILL blackmail. The States are so subservient to the federal government now, they will NEVER sue the federal government for breach of contract like they should!
Do I understand you correctly as saying that if two businesses in two separate states are conducting trade, that does not fall under the scope of the commerce clause, because the state governments themselves aren't engaging in commerce?
If that's the case, then that would also apply to two businesses located in two separate countries. Yet the founders were clear in their intent that that sort of thing be subject to federal control.
It has nothing to do with the political, imaginary borders between the States!
Surely you aren't referring to Hawaiian pinapples that had always existed within the bounds of Texas. States absolutely are limited by geography.