There exists a strain of political thought in the United States roughly as follows:
Most of the day to day government action (ie: not national defense) should be handled by state governments. This would be better, because state governments are more democratic; each individual vote matters much more. State governments are also freer, because if any person feels especially tyrannized by the majority within a specific state, that individual can move to a state that better matches his or her values. Such an escape is much more difficult with respect to a national majority. Furthermore, state governments are still big enough to have geographic redistribution, where such things might be appropriate, like using taxes in wealthy areas to fund public schools in poorer areas.
The main barrier to such a power distribution between state and federal governments currently seems to be an interpretation of the commerce clause and elastic clause which give the federal government vast powers to regulate human action and, via the supremacy clause, prevent any state government from behaving differently.
One obvious way to empower state governments would be to amend the US Constitution to explicitly state that the commerce clause is not a blank check to regulate anything, only things explicitly related to interstate trade and that no individual state could regulate unilaterally. The elastic clause would similarly need to be amended to ensure money was only spent in accordance with explicitly enumerated constitutional powers. What is the furthest any constitutional amendment to make such changes has gotten? Which groups stopped the amendment and what was their reasoning?