For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Thomas Jefferson, Jeffersons Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
The reasons that the federal government wrongly ignores the Commerce Clause today is the following. Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR was reelected enough times that he was able to establish an activist justice majority who saw things his way. And the Court took the opportunity provided by Wickard v. Filburn to sweep the 10th Amendment under the carpet.
In fact, using terms like "some concept" and "implicit" here is what was left of the 10th Amedment after FDR's puppet justices got finished with it.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit (emphases added) in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."--Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Noting that the Wickard opinion makes no mention of Jefferson's clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, FDR's justices had essentially reduced the 10th Amendment to a wives' tale.