You are correct....the tenth amendment is a very powerful amendment. The problem is the feds are rendering it moot, with activist judges, and overreaching congress. All items you mentioned in both posts are not the responsibility of the federal government. They are reserved for the states. Since everytime a libertarian speaks, the conservatives always bring up drugs and hookers, lets start there.
The federal government has no role in the war on drugs, other than to protect the borders against illegal importation. They have no business conducting no knock raids. They also have no business overriding a states decision to legalize or not.
Same with hookers. This is a state issue, with the feds having no business interfering with the citizens of the state’s decisions on this matter.
Same with abortion. If all the abortionists want to move to vermont and make roadside abortions legal, the citizens of that state have the right to do so. If texas wants to imprison abortionists, they have the right to do so. The feds have no role in this.
If you take away the hype and bs that is usually spewed during these discussions, you will find that what I stated is true, that the constitution as written pisses off both libs and conservatives.
Likewise interstate commerce in abortion or recreational pharmaceuticals. Our courts have taken a very expansive view if commerce clause jurisdiction, which may not have been intended by the framers, but the framers are no longer available to be interviewed. A certain Georgia restaurant owner who later became Georgia's governor (Lester Maddox) handed out axe handles to the patrons of his chicken joint to discourage blacks from joining them in the dining area. I believe that the matter was finally decided to have been a violation of the public accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was said by Congress to have been enacted pursuant, inter alia, to the Interstate Commerce Clause. Congresscritters and judges enthusiastic for the Act would justify its application on the theory that, if one ketchup bottle on one table had moved in interstate commerce, then.... Thus the Interstate Commerce Clause became the provision that ate Georgia, Maddux and the Constitution. One suspects that condoms, hookers, abortionists/babykilling doctors, medical supplies, and sometimes babykilling mamas, etc., move across state lines or may do so similarly justifying intervention by the federales in statutes applying the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The ultimate ridiculous application of the Interstate Commerce Clause was by FDR's SCOTUS which considered a case in which a farmer grew wheat on his own farm, ground the wheat into flour on his own farm, to be baked into bread on his own farm, to be consumed exclusively on his own farm by him, his wife, and his children, all residents of his own farm. SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that since the farmer might otherwise have purchased bread baked in another state or baked in whole or in part from ingredients from another state, interstate commerce was necessarily involved since he had chosen not to purchase in interstate commerce but might have. At the time the great SCOTUS Justice Edwin McReynolds was the senior Associate Justice. He reserved the right to orally deliver his opinion at the end. He stood up and said that rather than participate in such a judicial disgrace as that decision, he would resign from the SCOTUS.