The argument could be made for the 20th Century, but that would be Taft in 1925, holding that states were bound by the Constitution as much as the Feds were. Once that happened, the 10th Amendment became largely moot, and states’ rights were killed for good.
History shows that there is no such thing as "for good." This is true both for good and for ill. I believe our goals must reflect the reality that the rights and privileges of governing entities and citizens are always in flux. The interpretation even of clearly written Constitutional principles is heavily influenced by changes in power relationships among the entities. These are affected by communications technology, weapons technology (especially the scale of weapons), economics, and ideas.
To take one example, a corrupt US central government is currently trying to seize all power over every action of the citizens using the centralizing of data and the direct dispatch of Federal police powers to enforce an ever-evolving Federal ideology. But some would argue that government by data is only as strong as data security, and is inversely proportional to the power of private encryption.
Similarly, Federal policing effectiveness is inversely proportional the data capabilities and deadly force available to regions, states, local entities, or individuals. Technologies of all kinds prove to be advantageous to centralizing forces in one era, only to become a weapon in the hands of de-centralizing entities a short time later—simply because of tweaks in engineering or in philosophical attitudes.
It is our job to see that regions, states, localities, and individuals aggressively secure and protect their rights—simply because it is the best and most just way to govern and be governed. The most powerful weapon will probably be the one the Founders used: continually training the influential members of society in what history shows us about the effects of different political systems.