That's not what the commerce clause meant when it was drafted. The Congress based its assumption of authority over any and all things directly or indirectly involved in interstate commerce on liberal readings of the commerce clause in the Federal courts. It's much easier than amending the Constitution.
So with the help of the courts, the Congress establishes that there is nothing under the sun it can't regulate, as long as it is interstate commerce, or related to intersate commerce, or as long as their is a rational basis for thinking it might have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and Scalia goes along with it. It's ludicrous.
Refer to the actual meaning of the commerce clause at the time it was drafted.
No, they set out findings of fact that you haven't been able to refute in any particular.
They basically assume that anything that is involved in interstate commerce is subject to Congressional regulation.
Your statement just begged the question. Ironic.