I had a casual conversation with a Federal Judge about two years ago in which he told me that there was no such thing as “state’s rights”. I did not want to start an argument, so I let it pass, but I have since wondered exactly what he meant. Did he mean that the supremacy clause has been expanded to the point where, indeed, the states no longer have any rights, or did he mean that there never was such a thing in the first place? In any event, it was an insight into the thinking of the lower Federal Bench.
States have powers.
Human beings have rights.
In that sense he was correct. But I seriously doubt that’s what he meant.
L