No one really disputes that. The issue though is one of endless sophistry whereby the absolutely highest federal law (the Constitution itself) severely limits federal power to a very narrow scope of application, but then gets constantly ad hoc modified with "interpretational" advocacy. So then we get judicial activists to "make it fit" with literally anything they personally want to be the law of the land. Why even have a Constitution if all we needed was:

Article 1: Blah blah blah general welfare clause, yadda yadda yadda supremacy clause, we hereby decree that pretty much anything and everything is federal and therefore supreme. The end.

They really could have saved themselves a lot of unnecessary drafting by replacing the Constitution with that one sentenence if that's really how things were supposed to be.