AustinBill, you are not distinguishing between constitutional federal law and unconstitutional federal law, or between federal and state governments. Both are fatal errors that has allowed unimpeded and unconstitutional growth with the feds.
The Rule of Law is stated precisely in Article VI, Clause 2 (the “Supremacy Clause”) which states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and those U.S. laws PURSUANT to the Constitution. If a federal law of act is unconstitutional, is is invalid and should be repealed or nullified. Unconstitutional federal acts are, by definition, acts of tyranny.
Other than specifically enumerated powers delegated to the feds, like national defense, “heath and safety” are job of local and state government.
Also, as a matter of practicality given the scope of commerce, it is really practical to have 50 states individually inspecting, for example, California produce rather than this being done under the auspices of the USDA?
The problem with "Constitutional purity" is that we've strayed so far from "original intent" that one needs to work within the system as it, rather than how one wishes it might or should be. We're not going back to a rural/farming economy and just laws need to respect not just the past, but both current reality as well as overall societal needs. Being a realist is not inconsistent with being a conservative. It's all about being consistent with an overall guiding philosophy that seeks to maximize individual liberty while ensuring the common good.