LOL You didn't think I was concerned, did you? I know you better than that, so I knew that the disagreement had to be confusion about context or some such. Current implementation of the equal footing doctrine has become a mockery of the Constitution, particularly for Alaska.
The big problem in the Constitution with respect to its enumerated powers that caused the Feds to retain land illegally was funding an adequate national defense. In fact, I think the failing of the Articles of Confederation was due to an atmosphere in which possible reconquest by a European power was imminent. Tariffs became a huge injustice to the southern States and the principal grounds for the Civil War. As technology changed, the demand for permanent infrastructure (such as a navy) outstripped the ability of the government to fund it. That problem also played into the financial crisis that spawned the Federal reserve, the income tax, etc. Nor do I see a system of 50 militias working together effectively as a national defense.
Unfortunately, once the Feds got that income tax revenue stream to fund said navy, it was Katie bar the door. It's a tough problem.
If I may ask, how so?
I could certainly understand with today's 'modern' Constitutional interpretation, but the national defense provision was quite restrictive. Mostly because things like 'border patrol' and implementation of immigration was reserved to the States.
The militias were quite autonomous until a State made a request to the federal government for assistance and the militia, once called up, reached the point of muster. It was only then they were considered as being 'in the service' of the United States. (Houston v. Moore, 1820)
It would seem an elegant and workable solution to me if one were trying to avoid standing armies, but I guess we'll never really know since the idea never had a chance of being tried.