Any power includes the right to enforce it. If a state refused then armed force could be used.
A power is enacted through laws, applied through the judicial, and enforced through the executive functions.
In the end, a power is only enforced by threat of, or use of, force. Which brings us full circle as to why the powers of governments, at every level, need to be countered by the ability of the people to have some means of counter-force.
Yes, and I believe you were arguing that the Constitution was the law that gave the feds the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states.
If not, and this seems the second time you have said not, then we are in agreement.
If you're really saying the federal Bill of Rights has a moral authority over the states- we agree again!
It has exerted moral authority over the states ( some states voluntarily enforced them upon themselves) as it has exerted a moral authority over nations all over the world!
"the powers of governments, at every level, need to be countered by the ability of the people to have some means of counter-force."
That is the purpose of a Bill of Rights ( and of other limitations such as constitutionally enumerated and divided powers). I do not see why anyone would be surprised that the Founders placed one upon the federal government too.
Again I urge you to read a general book on the ratifications of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It's fascinating what one can misunderstand today.
Here's a delightfully ironic exchange from the Virginia Ratification Convention on the need for a federal Bill of Rights:
Madison: "The Southern States would not have entered into the Union of America without the temporary permission of that trade; and if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us.... in this Constitution, "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due." This clause was expressly inserted, to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. "
Tyler:"This temporary restriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the arguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up was retained by the states; for that, if this restriction had not been inserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade. The power of prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would have had it by implication, if this restraint had not been provided. This seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of restraining them, by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or included in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the other. "
Madison: "As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations. "
Henry: "The gentleman had admitted that Congress could have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction. If so, the power, not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of reserved rights. He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from assuming any powers but those expressly given. "
Yes, one argument for a Bill of Rights was to protect... slavery!