The dilemma is, so long as there is majority rule there will never really be protection of minority rights. This applies to states rights as with individual rights. It’s a problem of Democracy. I don’t favor secession, but the US should practice a less unitary form of federalism.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Anti-Federalist-An-Abridgment-Complete/dp/0226775658/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1352869353&sr=8-2&keywords=complete+anti-federalist
Pg 37: “The non-attendance of eight or nine men, who were appointed members of the convention, I shall ever consider as a very unfortunate event to the United States.”
Among these were thought to be Abraham Clark of NJ, Richard Caswell & Willie Jones of NC, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee & Thomas Nelson of VA.
Hmm, add the others from the Constitutional Convention like Paterson, Lansing, Yates, Gorham, Randolph . . . others? That makes ten or so. They could have significantly influenced the Constitution which at any time had about thirty-five members in attendance.
Had they participated, the Constitution would not have been so inclined toward aristocracy, nor would it have as many powers, which would have been better defined. I am also conviced there would have been a prohibition on any that affected the states’ internal police.
Unfortunately, by their absence, the Anti-Federals had only themselves to blame.