There’s a reason that the country abandoned that approach, despite virtually everyone being ideologically committed to it: it doesn’t work in practice. Time and time again in this country’s history, people tried the decentralized, weak federal government but then we faced crises that could only be solved with a stronger and more centralized federal government. Whether it was the Articles of Confederation being unable to pay soldiers from the Revolution, or states seceding and starting a war because the elites felt their interests were going to be threatened someday if they didn’t, or the Great Depression - despite being the “face” of big government, FDR was actually quite restrained in the New Deal and tried at times to roll parts of it back (resulting in harm to the economy), and it was only WWII that gave an excuse to do the kind of government spending necessary to recover - or desegregation, where the federal government had to deploy troops to force schools to integrate. Your approach was tried again and again and it failed again and again, and the reason we don’t have it anymore is that it’s fundamentally dysfunctional.

You can’t just decide what the best policy is through pure reason, you have to look at what’s been tried and what happened. Like, point me at any point in the country’s history where the problem was not enough state’s rights and a too powerful federal government as opposed to the opposite.