So... help me here, please.
Under this argument, everything you do, or not do, affects interstate commerce, is that correct?
If I understand correctly, this means that we have now reversed the understanding of what the role of government ought to be as compared to what was known under the Founding Fathers.
The Federalist Papers, as well as the Constitution as it was originally debated and written and amended, defines a government of specific and defined scope, which is further limited in the execution of its powers by certain outlined rights (first seen in the first 10 Amendments), with everybody seeing the rights so outlined as only a basic package of rights, and everybody understood that other rights existed beyond those enumerated directly. Thus we had the 9th and 10th Amendment, but the understanding itself predates them, and can be found in the various Founding-era documents.
But we have now gone and reversed course. If the legal argument is correct that every activity can be covered under interstate commerce, then what we have is a government of nearly unlimited scope, restrained only by those rights explicitly listed in the Constitution.
In short the Federal government can make you buy broccoli, but they cannot ban you from writing letters to your Representatives asking them to repeal the broccoli requirement. If you refuse to buy broccoli, you can expect a fair trial on the broccoli charges, and even a jury of your peers. Should Congress make broccoli-evasion a felony, you will then be deprived of your voting rights, gun rights, and prohibited employment at several dozen different jobs.
It doesn't seem to be very consistent with individual liberty.