RP, don't get all huffy with me. If you want to say that the Embargo Act was appropriate use of federal power, there's a fine argument to be made there, and that's fine with me. But don't expect me to agree with you, or to look at the Embargo Act--or Jefferson's administration--as some shining example of how the federal government's powers were best explained by the Founders. After all, this is also the guy that bought Louisiana without the power to do so, and fought an undeclared war on Tripoli. The Embargo Act was a miserable failure and only Constitutional because there could not have been a better centralizer on the court to back it up--even the Hartford Convention Federalists acknowledged that the Jeffersonian "anti-Federalism" was stretching the Constitution to the point they wanted to amend it to further restrict the Constitutional prerogatives of the federal government.
And you misread my intimation about 1884--what I was saying was that the post Civil-War era was rife with centralization, that 1884 is not such a great pick insofar as grabbing a date to rely upon as to the Constitutionality of a state OR federal action. I'm not at all implying there's some time limit on Congress to invent powers. I'm stating clearly that regardless of Supreme Court decisions granting Congress power to do so, it has never had the powers you claim.
As to the 9th and 10th, well, heck, just because today's Supreme Court says the sky is green and the sea is purple doesn't make it so.
Jefferson and his Secretary of State at the time, James Madison, were both Founding Fathers. James Madison wrote the U.S. Constitution.
One would think he would have said to Jefferson at the time, "Hey, Tom. This wasn't what I intended when I wrote the Commerce Clause".