Nor would anything which stripped state sovereignty. One could argue that the entire Twentieth Century would have turned out much differently regarding domestic policy and the effect it had on economics.
To FatMax, I agree.
As Senators got used to independence from the States and could ignore the effect of their legislation upon them, Scotus lent a helping hand in 1941 when its FDR appointed judges termed the 10th Amendment to be “tautologous,” a needless repetition of the obvious.
The Progressive Scotus decision was an insult to the Framers, delegates to the State ratifying conventions and the first Constitutional Congress that sent what became the 10th Amendment to the States for ratification.
This meant that federalism was a political question to be handled by a political process devoid of federalism!
Absent federalism, the states rapidly watched wholesale elimination of their legitimate and historic control over internal commerce, general police powers and had to accept conditional spending by the national government.
Congress discovered it could use the states to achieve its progressive ends without being held accountable for the results.