I beg to differ. The analogy is flawed.
In a better analogy to baseball, the States would be the owners, the constitution the rules of the game, the federal judges umpires and the players the departments of the federal government. With this we can see more clearly the flaw in the argument. The problem is not that the constitution has been interpreted into irrelvance (a fact we are more than happy to stipulate as true.) The problem is that the constitution was never designed to constrain the federal government in the absence of sovereign states.
So to understand our circumstance through an analogy to baseball, imagine a world where the commisioner were allowed to rule unconstrained by the owners. He could set the rules of the game, players salaries, decide in which cities the teams could play. In short, he exercized all the powers the nominal owners had surrendered. In such a world would it matter to argue over how the umpires interpreted the rules set by the usurper?
I think it’s your analysis that’s flawed. The commissioner would be like the president. And it isn’t the president that is forcing the judges to rule this way or that. Yes, the problem is the umpires (and everyone else who supports their violation of he Constitution).