My point is that the phrase “states rights”, for me at least, is a relative term, just as “human rights” is. It is “rights” vs what they do not have the right to do.
An example would be that, generally speaking, a state can put anything it wants into its constitution and enforce it as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution of the US. Those are considered, to me, “states rights”.
Our "perceptions" don't necessarily mean "in reality". :)