I would say that the FAA is very solidly within the founders intent of the interstate commerce clause and not an abuse of that clause as is normal.
And I say that as no friend of the FAA.
And though I have zero doubt that this was simply because they don’t like the photos coming out, the FAA will argue that this TFR is because it is a bit over a mile laterally from the 1 mile short final approach to Del Rio International Airport.
We all know why they did it. But that is how the FAA will defend it. Probably successfully.
Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, had agreed with you that many things are related to commerce, Story mentioned "intimately connected."
The problems is that Story also warned that when Congress starts regulating things that are tangent (my word) to commerce, then the Constitution's Article I, Section 8 limits on Congress's powers become meaningless.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments [emphases added]." —Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 1073--91
Thomas Jefferson advised us to interpret the federal government's powers narrowly since the Constitution can always be amended to expand the fed's powers.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.