I don't give a rat's patoot for these anachronistic crippling notions of "federalism." The Brits have no written constitution at all. Our founders broke daring new ground by establishing a written constitution to shackle government. A cursory reading of the federal budget should suffice to demonstrate that we are not really remotely close to living under the shackles they established. People who pretend otherwise are embarrassments and not conservatives.
James Madison did not designate you as his modern spokesman. The founders were not gods. They were remarkable but not infallible men. There is an entire and shameful history of how the constitution was adopted but that won't be overturned now. In some ways, the constitution was a step in the right direction in that it facilitated the establishment of a standing military so that presidents did not have to beg the governors and states by saying "Mother, May I???" to get troops, much as that may disturb Dr. Demento. In other ways, the establishment of central authority to tax and monkey with the value of money may not have been such great ideas.
There are libertarian fools who imagine that the founders somehow foresaw Roe vs. Wade and intended it. They attribute to the founders a degree of imbecilic self-worship that is entirely unjustified. They suggest that the founders intended to enact a regime of spoiled children "keeping their options open." If that had been the intent our nation would no longer exist.
The knee-jerk libertoonian response to everything is to bleat that they have the right to do what they please. Killing innocent babies is not an exercise in personal rights by the killers. If the states cannot get the job done of stopping the American Holocaust, then the feds will have to do the job. If you don't agree, them find another political movement because you are no conservative. IIRC, you are from North Carolina. Jesse Helms had no problem with the imposition of federal law against abortion.
You, like your libertoonian confreres, elevate form over substance. You don't care what government does or doesn't do so long as 1) it does not impinge on your "rights" almighty, and 2) it is mostly done at a state or local level procedurally. Normally 2) is known as the principle of subsidiarity and it is NORMALLY a fine principle. It is not a suicide pact making of the federal government a helpless midget in the face of the slaughter of 50+ million utterly innocent babies.
Unsurprised, I note that you chose not to argue with the fact that the 14th Amendment conferred jurisdiction on the central government to protect innocent human life from state government depredations and, in the Equal Protection Clause thereof, specifically requires Equal Protection of state and local law for each "person" under any given state's jurisdiction. The only necessary bridge is to define those conceived but not yet born as persons. That time will come.
Unsurprised, I note that you chose not to argue with the fact that the 14th Amendment conferred jurisdiction on the central government to protect innocent human life from state government depredations and, in the Equal Protection Clause thereof, specifically requires Equal Protection of state and local law for each "person" under any given state's jurisdiction.
Besides there being nothing before the 20th century to justify your position here's some homework reading for you eh? The 14th Amendment was not meant to destroy the states, yet liberals, 'conservatives', and Progressives have done just that with it. All under different auspices, all for different reasons, but usually accompanied by silly catchphrases such as 'for the children', 'protecting the family', etc.