Keyphrase is "federal" laws, hey?
Interesting point about the 10th, yet, some would say that it's debatable whether or not complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations would promote the general welfar... but I get what your saying about leaving it up to the States. I have mixed feelings about the FDA's process for approving new drugs and how they're scheduled, for instance, but I think we're better off overall with the approval process.
Yes, "federal" is the key...because the 10th Amendment is absolutely clear about what Congress made address, and what it may not.
...UNLESS one wishes to assert that there is a right, under the 9th Amendment, to put into one's body whatever one desires, as long as one isn't hurting someone else.
In my opinion, arguing that one has that right under the 9th Amendment, would potentially involve judicial activism. I would expect that there were state or local laws, at the time the Constitution was written, that prohibitted the use of...alcohol, for instance. If so, then an argument under the 9th amendment would be judicial activism, which I don't support.
...some would say that it's debatable whether or not complete elimination of all federal laws and regulations would promote the general welfare...
As I pointed out previously, the Constitution does NOT authorize Congress to do anything that is in the "general welfare" of the people. The Constitution ONLY authorizes the Congress to do the "general welfare" items that are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED (listed) in Article I, Section 8 (e.g., "coin money and regulate the value thereof," or "establish Post Offices."
I have mixed feelings about the FDA's process for approving new drugs and how they're scheduled, for instance, but I think we're better off overall with the approval process.
This reminds me of something I read from my mother just last night. She said that, even though the Constitution forbids it, it's probably still good that the federal government owns national parks or wilderness areas. But she was wrong. (Doesn't happen too often. ;-)) And you are wrong. We're NEVER "better off" when the federal government violates The Law. Because when they do it on one thing, and people don't complain/agitate/revolt until they STOP, they are just encouraged to violate The Law on something else.
If we're indeed "better off" with the FDA (not possible, in my opinion), it would ONLY be true if there was first (or second) a Constitutional amendment to allow the FDA.
The federal goverment should follow The Law. No exceptions. Instead, they virtually never follow The Law. And it's costing us, big-time (25% of our income, to start with).