Another easy example in the opposite direction is how case law has substantially diluted the meaning of words like "infringe", "unreasonable" and "excessive" in amendments 2^1, 2^2 and 2^3.
Any support for that statement?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 - "... principally its power to regulate interstate commerce"
Whether or not you agree with that interpretation, it would take some willful ignorance to say that the plain text reading of regulating interstate commerce means you can regulate all commerce because you might have bought something from someone otherwise
See Wickard v. Filburn.
At least that's the logic of the court.
This is stretching the law beyond any reasonable interpretation, done so by the same government who gains a lot of power by doing so.
If a started a business that picks peoples noses among multiple states, would Congress be able to regulate nose-picking by individuals on their own private property?
As an easy example, the commerce clause in the US constitution has come to mean something that no layman would ascribe to it.