If you're going to take an originalist approach to the issue, it's abundantly clear that that power was listed in the Constitution so as to take it away from the states, not to give Congress any new powers. There isn't a scintilla of evidence from the writings of either federalists or anti-federalists at the time that the purpose of the clause was to give the federal government any restrictive power over actual commercial transactions within the country. And accordingly Congress never tried to exercise such a power until 100 years after the Constitution went into effect.
Scintilla? Perhaps more than that.
How about United States v. The William, 28 Fed. Cas. 614, no. 16,700 D.Mass. 1808, just 19 years after ratifcation?
"Further, the power to regulate commerce is not to be confined to the adoption of measures, exclusively beneficial to commerce itself, or tending to its advancement; but, in our national system, as in all modern sovereignties, it is also to be considered as an instrument for other purposes of general policy and interest."
Now, surely there were a few Founding Fathers alive in 1808 to say, "Hey, that's not what we meant!". Did anyone say that?
Are you saying that since Congress didn't exercise their power for 100 years that they never had that power? I hope that's not your logic or your argument.