Michael Gerson challenges not only libertarianism (which I’ve never been able to embrace), but constitutional conservatism, which I have embraced:
The Tea Party movement, being resistant to systemization, is resistant to characterization. But in its simplest form (and there seems to be no other form), it might be called “constitutional conservatism.” It adopts a rigorous hermeneutic: If the Constitution does not specifically mention it, the federal government isn’t allowed to do it. This represents a kind of 10th Amendment fundamentalism — a muscular form of states’ rights that would undo much of the federal role since Franklin Roosevelt, perhaps since Abraham Lincoln.
This philosophy has the virtue of being easily explainable — and the drawback of being impossible. The current federal role did not grow primarily because of the statist ambitions of liberals; it grew in response to democratic choices and global challenges. Federal power advanced to rescue the elderly from penury, to enforce civil rights laws, to establish a stable regulatory framework for a modern economy, to conduct a global Cold War. The “establishment” that advanced and maintained this federal role included Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. In many areas, the federal government has gone too far, becoming bloated and burdensome. But the federal role cannot be abandoned.
So I guess the principle is “if it’s ‘necessary,’ tough luck that the constitution doesn’t allow it.”
Easily explainable, possible – and to my ears, still intolerable.
It puts us in permanent servility to court judgments of whether something “goes too far” or is “bloated and burdensome.” I’d really like a brighter line than that.
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 
This reminds me of an American History book I read once. The chapter immediately following the conclusion of the Civil War began, simply, “Hamilton won.”
The reference was to the debates between Hamilton and Jefferson about the character of the federal government with Hamilton advocating a strong federal government and Jefferson a weak one.
Hamilton indeed won the battle. One commentator marked that as the birth of a new American Republic – and he didn’t intend that as a compliment. Then FDR ushered in yet another.
The text of the Tenth Amendment never changed. It’s scary when any part of the Constitution falls into desuetude. What’s the point of a written constitution. then?
The debate isn’t new, as your allusion to the Federalist shows.
Now we have adherents of the national religion of American Exceptionalism saying (to my ears), “We’re sorry about the 10th amendment and all that, but we’re now the Indispensable Nation. The world will fall into chaos and barbarism without us. So get over it. Empire is here to stay.”
But some of us ask “Is it so? Must it be so? Such hubris (among other things) makes us a target. Is it so unthinkable for us to be just another sovereign state, largely minding its own business?”