"If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw — government that has abandoned all its powers — the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights — without check, limitation, or control.
And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers — pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated state government!
You have a bill of rights to defend you against the state government, which is bereaved of all power, and yet you have none against Congress, though in full and exclusive possession of all power!
You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?
What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up. This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. "
The states had their own traditions and Bills of Rights, it was never the intention of the Founders to limit state governments with the Constitution except where power had to be given to the new government for it to function effectively.
My question is of this desire to see the Constitution differently from how the Founders did. RKBA people are in general supporters of the intent of the Founders and there just isn't ANY evidence that they intended the central government to have this power over the states.
Tell me this. Do you believe that the founders of this nation believed in inalienable rights?