Show me where such a power is specifically denied them and the other states.
Would this be in the category of a claim that since the Tenth Amendment provides as it does that all powers not specifically delegated to the fedgov are reserved to the states and people respectively, that only the states can create square circles or construct boulders so large that even the states cannot roll them up the steepest parts of the Rocky Mountains.
Now who's posts are incomprehensible? But let me ask you point to me where the word 'specific' is found in the 10th Amendment? Or anywhere else in the Constitution?
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding."
If all states agreed to go, there would be no controversy. If even a single state objected, that would signify a controversy, and per Article III of the constitution, controversies between states, or between the federal government and any state are to be resolved with the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction. That is why the recent federal suit against the Arizona immigration law was pursued at the SCOTUS.