Which brings us back to a mixture of federal, state and local jurisdictional authorities. Each level of jurisdiction is unique, and a single "apply this to it" approach from on-high probably won't stand constitutional muster.

Estate law is a good one. The states (not the feds) own this one. Changes to estate/intestacy law must occur at the state level, and a fed "change" may be considered a "10th Amerndment" violation despite any argument espousing the "Equal Protection" clause. That's just one example of how messy things can get when the fed gets involved in state business. I don't thing anyone's goal is to place such matters in a protracted appellate situation, resulting in "law from the bench" to potentially occur.

As with any issue, emotion can cloud how to effect change. Legal objectivity, especially recognizing where jurisdiction for certain change exists, is paramount. THEN true change can be initiated, rather than emotional attempts at change which fail from the onset no matter how righteous the desired change may seem..