And it seems you don't understand the scope of legislative powers, pertinent to the economy..
This is what the Constitution actually provides:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Article I | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
All of that is germane when dealing with the economy.
Quoting the Constitution is fine, but it all comes down to the values and ambitions of those interpreting it. If you want the commerce clause to mean that government has unlimited power to dictate our economic decisions, and you can get Congress and the Court to agree with you, then that's what it means.
The real question is, what do we want it to mean, and why?
There's ALOT more than just the "commerce clause" in the sections I just posted.
It's in English as well.
So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.