Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
The 10th amendment doesn't really say that. All it says is that the powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government are reserved for the states. But both implicitly and explicitly, the Constitution grants sweeping powers to the federal government and limits the powers of states. This idea of the federal government being subservient to the states is not a part of the Constitution, like at all. The whole point in replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution was to change the balance of power from the states to the federal government.

But you're right in that we've been over this ground before. I just think it's important to reiterate that what you're looking for is not a change in the way the Constitution is interpreted, but for the Constitution to be -- in part -- rewritten. There would be no way for states to have the kind of power you want them to have without changing Article VI, for example, which establishes the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land", and demands that judges in every state uphold it, regardless of what state or local laws say.
I agree with everything you say here up to the point of wanting to change our rewrite the constitution. We have always agreed on this. Your opinion of the interpretation is a little different from mine but they are similar nonetheless. My point is that the FG is limited in it's power as is every other entity in our government and I think the FG has overstepped it's power lately. Not only does this take power from the states, it burdens the FG with having to regulate and pay for the "programs". Given our current state of affairs, I can't possibly see how this is positive.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk