> Reading the Interstate Commerce Clause with the understanding of the words as they were used at the time gives almost an opposite understanding to what was meant at the time.

Reading it with today’s meaning might make it opposite if what was meant at the time. Or reading it with the original meaning might make it opposite of what it would mean today.

But reading with the older meaning shouldn’t make it the opposite if what was meant at the (older) time.

Nothing wrong with typos, hope I didn't come off that way. jagged-chisel got the gist of my idea. Was just curious if it was intentional or not