Should I take that to mean you would like to see the commerce clause repealed? If so, don't you think it might be a wee tad presumptive of you to imply that you have a better idea regarding interstate commerce than that company of singularly astute men who carefully crafted that clause after exhaustive debate and discussion of it's implications? No offense intended, I just want to understand the meaning of your post.
I know as well as you that the courts have "found" broad powers and dimensions in that clause the authors never intended it to have. The owner or possessor of any item of merchandise, oh let's say a firearm, that was ever connected in any way with interstate commerce is now made forever subject to federal restrictions and regulations that could not be imposed by any other part of the Constitution, and that was not the intended purpose of the clause. That isn't surprising given the judicial branch's proclivity to grasp at any straw that promises to enlarge the scope of government's power at the expense of our liberties.
But I hardly think that improper employment of the clause renders it ineffective for the actual purpose for which it was intended, do you? I am no economist, but the idea of 50 sovereign states, each with a different slate of trade laws designed to benefit that individual state at the expense of the others doesn't seem to me to be conducive to a healthy national economy, nor to a healthy economy within the various states for that matter.
I don't know about you, but I am perfectly willing to defer to the authors' wisdom in every matter addressed by their masterpiece document, including the matter of interstate commerce. Now if the U.S. judiciary would just adopt that attitude when interpreting the old document we would all be much the better for it don't you think?
No, it's just a commentary on the way the "living, breathing" crowd uses the commerce clause to cover just about every type of federal law or policy imaginable.