[fortheDeclaration]

But what about the sorry history of "states' rights" as a doctrine that southern states invoked by way of defending slavery and then, after the Civil War, the reign of Jim Crow? Does this not give weight to the question, "Why doesn't Washington trust the states?" Indeed it does, but here too there has been substantial misunderstanding over the years, with a seminal Supreme Court case at its core. The tragic compromise that led the Framers to accept slavery in their midst is well known. It took a civil war to abolish that institution, and the Civil War Amendments to secure the legal rights of the freed slaves.

The problem was that there is no such thing as 'state rights'only individual rights.

All gov't (local, state and Federal) are for the purpose of defending the individual from arbitrary power of either of these governments.

Neither one is inherently better then the other, only easier to control since it is smaller (Local and State).

[GeronL]

Most people mean powers of government not specifically delegated to the federal government when they talk about "states rights".

[tpaine]

fortheDeclaration wrote:

The problem was that there is no such thing as 'state rights'only individual rights.

Those of us that believe so are a very small minority at FR, surprisingly enough.

Most here have surrendered to the idea that if you can get a State to enforce 'the rules', [as you would have them] its 'right'.
-- It's also the Constitution turned on its head.