First, I admire the OP for properly analyzing the tenth amendment–by looking to the rest of the constitution to determine if the law in question fits under any of those powers.
The Tenth is a provision that is in many ways redundant (note, not meaningless, but redundant)–since it duplicates the implicit limitation on the federal government that stems from the constitution being a grant of certain powers to the federal government—the tenth is simply a statement that powers not granted to the federal government remain with the states.
So to interpret the tenth amendment in the context of a given law, the real analysis does not look to the text of the tenth amendment itself–but to see if the proposed law fits into any of the other powers the constitution grants to the federal government. All that is needed is one source of lawmaking authority.
Second, the OP demonstrates the power of framing–if you phrase a given act of congress in one way, it may not seem to fit under any constitutional provision–but if you describe it in another way, it may clearly fit under a grant of power. That is (as many others have pointed out) a task for the courts (and the Supreme Court, at the margin).
Even extreme textualists who disagree that the court should interpret the constitution in any way (a silly position) must admit that part of the role of courts is determining facts–determining if a given activity is, or is not, for example, commerce under whatever definition it is using.
So there is little weight to the argument that, as you think a law should be defined, it doesn’t seem to be constitutional–without having the courts agree that your chosen definition is the proper way to define a given law, and (perhaps implicitly as a part of that process)-that there is no way to reasonably construe the law as a valid exercise of congressional lawmaking power (since if there is, it is hard to argue that does not constitutionally validate the law).