Revisionism. The word "regulate" was interpreted in more or less its modern sense in Gibbons v Ogden, in 1824, merely 35 years after ratification.
"[T]he power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."
This is not a case where the meaning of the word has drifted from what it meant at the time of the founding. I'm quite conservative in my Constitutional interpretation, but I think conservatives get the Commerce Clause wrong. Its broad and was intended to be. The anti-federalist framers thought the "interstate" part would be a limit, but didn't concieve of a world where every transaction would cross state borders. Indeed, they lived in a world where market transactions were the exception. But saying that we should interpret the plain text more narrowly because the world has changed since then is a very "living Constitution" thing to do.
I would certainly include defining a singular version to be under the power granted by standardize. Heck most standards are singular in nature. That isn't a stretch at all.
> so Delaware couldn't charge a $1 tariff on a widget imported from New Jersey and two bits on the same thing from Pennsylvania
We are talking about minting coins, not interstate taxes.
> It should not be giving money to the states except by apportioning the funds by census populations.
That only works for some very basic things. Maybe roads (I doubt it) and certainly not a lot of things such as National Forests.
> declare ketchup a vegetable.
Vegetables in school lunches are measured exclusively by volume, not by nutritional content. Most of the tomato jokes are related to concentrated versions that get a pass because serving a kid a cup of ketchup or tomato sauce is silly.
I think it would be completely warranted to have a constitutional amendment that controls how the federal government manages the treasury. It should not be giving money to the states except by apportioning the funds by census populations. If the Wisconsin drinking age is 18, too bad. As long as you are paying for highways at all, you have to pay them 1.817% of that money, because they have 1.817% of the US population.
That would prevent an awful lot of political lever-pulling in the form that you mentioned. You couldn't tie federal highway funding to anything other than the actual upkeep of the highways. And you couldn't make school lunch subsidies contingent on serving corn at least 3 times per week, or declare ketchup a vegetable.