Whether a court must apply the plain language of a federal criminal statute without considering historical state authority or congressional intent when such application would intrude on traditionally state-regulated areas

When applying the plain language of a broadly worded federal criminal statue would intrude on an area historically left to the states, must a court apply the plain language without consideration of the context in which the statute was enacted or the presumption that if Congress intends to usurp authority previously left to the states it must say so explicitly?