People act like there is no downside on hamstringing the federal governments ability to govern. Over-restriction of what the federal government could do is precisely what led to the creation of the Constitution.
No, it was amended for that purpose. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution afterwards, not at the time of enactment. Plenary power is retained by the states in some areas - the ones where it has not already been delegated to Congress. Art. 1 s.8 certainly does give Congress the plenary power over interstate commerce, copyright, and a number of other things...not least 'post roads,' which are arguably equivalent to 'communications infrastructure.'
There are limits on Federalism, but it is far from the unconstitutional imposition you seem to think it is.
Regardless, I'm not sure how you got the impression that I think federalism is unconstitutional or an imposition... I generally feel that multiple conflicting state-based laws is an inefficient way to run a country, and note that the constitution gives the states the ability to cede legislative power to the commonwealth (as it should).
