To put the action of eliminating the Interstate Commerce Clause in a little different light I would like to add that this action was predictable and several Supreme Court Justices have eluded to, at the least, that something like this could happen.
On one end you have the strict constructionist view of the commerce clause simply regulating the states regulatory actions against another. At the other end of it's interpretation you have Gonzales v. Raich virtually eliminating any constraints. The ambiguity of the interpretation of the commerce clause is the reason it needs to be eliminated.
There is nothing left in the debate other than the power of the Federal Government vs. the power of the States. There is nothing that Congress could do to better our union using it's power under the Interstate Commerce Clause that could not be better handled elsewhere in the constitution or it amendments, specifically the tenth and fourteenth, or that could be better handled specifically by the state