Your citation to Wickard v. Fillburn for support of this is...bizarre. That case took what some view as an unreasonably expansive view of the federal power under the ICC, but that does the opposite of supporting the contention that it was “hollowed out” in a way that expands state power into the reserved federal space.

It explicitly says Congress however it is currently interpreted that it applies to all governmental organizations. Federal, state and local. It has previously been argued that the same limitation on interstate law existed at the state level, as the authority of a state could not exceed that of the congress when it came to national matters. If congress effectively has no limitation, there is no limitation to exceed.

No, it isn't.

States are limited by the 14th Amendment. Now, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to apply a whole lot of substantive rights against the states, including rights exactly identical to those protected against federal interference by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd (but only, to date, but one Circuit Court), 4th, 5th, most of the 6th (except for the jury locality requirement), and 8th (but maybe not the excessive bail requirement) amendments.

> It has previously been argued that the same limitation on interstate law existed at the state level, as the authority of a state could not exceed that of the congress when it came to national matters.

The interstate commerce clause argument against the state isn't that states can't do what Congress can't: that states can regulate purely intrastate Commerce is not subject to serious dispute.

The argument is that the interstate commerce clause itself prohibits many state regulations of interstate commerce, and further empowers Congress to further narrow the permissible space of state regulations of interstate commerce.

> The argument is that the interstate commerce clause itself prohibits many state regulations of interstate commerce

If you argue that states have the right to regulate interstate commerce AND the congress can pass a bill in regards to abortion because doing so is in the interest of interstate commerce. Then why can't a state pass a law that allows fathers of children that were aborted in another state to sue the abortion provider that did the procedure?

On the other hand what if we agreed that having an abortion isn't a matter of interstate commerce, then congress would not have the authority to regulate it nationally and states wouldn't be able to do so either.

States have the power to regulate intrastate commerce within their own state. They have very limited power with regard to interstate commerce (limited, very roughly, to nondiscriminatory regulation of transactions within the state which impact interstate commerce and where such regulation also is not in conflict with federal regulation of interstate commerce), because interstate commerce is expressly Constitutionally a federal function, and state action in that domain otherwise interferes with that federal function. A more expansive view of the federal power here narrows, rather than expands, the state power.

The law isn't determined on a factual, textual or even a logical basis. Gitmo, civil asset forfeiture, mass surveillance, dread scott, alien and sedition, japanese american internment camps, executive order 6102, roe. It's a political system and it reflects the political thinking at the time. The consensus you outline here is a bad idea, full of logical leaps, and it will lead to ruin, but I guess it will take the other guys getting into power to prove that to some people.

You are talking about how things are, I'm trying to say that they could be something else.