That is the most incoherent attempt at revisionist history I have read in quite a while. The term "States Rights" has been around since the beginning of our nation, and was landmarked by the wording of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Tell me just where the Bill of Rights uses the specific term; "State's Rights"? It NEVER does. The language of the U.S. Constitution uses the terms "rights" and "powers" for "person", "persons" and "the people", and uses the term "power" or "powers" only for government, irrespective of federal or state . . . powers emanate from the "right of the people" to confer these powers upon government.
By splitting hairs over a word or two you are ignoring a basic tenet of the constitution: the people at the state level have the right to create forms of government that are not allowed at the federal level. For example, the people of Massachusetts have the right to establish a state government that respects the establishment of religion. The people comprising the federal government have no such right. Hence, "States Rights". In general, the term "States Rights" refers to right belonging to the people of the several states to create powers that do not belong to the federal government. Thomas Jefferson explained states rights and the 10th Amendment in an 1808 letter this way:
I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.
Jefferson also warned us about the dangers to states rights from the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments in this fragment from an 1822 letter to William T Barry:
We already see the power [the Supreme Court], installed for life responsible to no authority, (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow,) advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions, for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the ingulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.
You certainly can't say that Jefferson didn't warn us about the dangers to states rights from the Supreme Court.
In any case, there is an argument for using the term "states rights" to apply to rights people have to create powers at the state level, but not at the federal level, and Jefferson gave it to us.
But if you continue to insist that "States Rights" do not exist, then I have to insist that the "Bill of Rights" do not exist because that term is not mentioned in either the Constitution or Amendments.
The term "States Rights" has been around since the beginning of our nation, and was landmarked by the wording of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
The wording of both the 9th. and 10th. Amendments do not use the term "State's Rights" at all. To the contrary, the only entity mentioned in these amendments that have "rights" (as well as powers), are "the people". So if both terms, rights and powers, are equivelent, why did the framers of the constitution never vary in the style, manner and context of their use of the two words? Why not just use one word?
In any case, there is an argument for using the term "states rights" to apply to rights people have to create powers at the state level, but not at the federal level, and Jefferson gave it to us.
Just go on believing that. In the end, the states will have confiscated all the individual rights not now "incorporated" into the 14th. Amendment. These rights will, however, be protected at the federal level, but then who lives in a federal "State"? We all live in one of the "several states", don't we? As it stands now, the Bill of Rights only applies to "some" states, in the end it will apply to none.
By splitting hairs over a word or two you are ignoring a basic tenet of the constitution:...
No it's not, it's getting right to the heart and soul of the Constitution and that it is: "the People" are superior to the government, be it federal or state, and that a "right" is individual and inalienable, and that a power is derived from the consent of the governed and may be removed. It's not semantics, as you "States Righters" are prone to claim. The two terms have very separate and important meanings and "States Rights" is just another name on the road to serfdom. Especially if Hillary is president!
For example, the people of Massachusetts have the right to establish a state government that respects the establishment of religion. The people comprising the federal government have no such right.
I was unaware that there was such a thing as a citizen of the federal government. Americans live in states, not in the federal government.
Furthermore; " the people of Massachusetts have the right to establish a state government that respects the establishment of religion."
Not anymore they don't. But MA can declare a "right" for gays to marry.
"In general, the term "States Rights" refers to [the] right belonging to the people of the several states to create powers that do not belong to the federal government."
I agree with the underlined portions of your statement,above, being that the people poses the rights and the state derives its power from the people. It is an exact example my point. However, state (and federal) government, in and of itself, has no rights.
Thomas Jefferson explained states rights and the 10th Amendment in an 1808 letter this way:"...but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S."
Your T. Jefferson citation uses the term "powers", not rights to convey his idea that there is a division of powers among the "U.S." and the states. He makes no mention of any kind of "Rights", state or otherwise.
Jefferson also warned us about the dangers to states rights from the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments in this fragment from an 1822 letter to William T Barry: [ for brevity, text omitted from reply, elbucko]
You certainly can't say that Jefferson didn't warn us about the dangers to states rights from the Supreme Court.
No I can't. It is still an issue to this day that we refer to as Judicial Activism. That Jefferson used the term "constitutional state rights", is undeniable. That some of the Founding Fathers, in their correspondence, used the terms powers or rights casualy and interchangeably is without doubt. But casual correspondence between intimates and the lawful expression of legal ideas are two different things. Or, if words don't mean anything, why is CA AG Lockyer denying 2nd. Amendment rights to the citizens of California because the right does not exist in the CA state constitution (i.e. state's rights?) and that the state is not compelled to recognize the 2nd. Amendment because it is not incorporated into the 14th Amendment by reason of state's rights again? Rights and powers are, indeed in issue. I am as opposed to "State's Rights, as I am opposed to "Federal Rights" as I am opposed to "Dog Catcher Rights". All are a corruption of their meaning and all threaten our individual liberty.
But if you continue to insist that "States Rights" do not exist, then I have to insist that the "Bill of Rights" do not exist because that term is not mentioned in either the Constitution or Amendments.
You are free to exercise your individual, 1st. Amendment right that the Bill of Rights does not "exist" as the first ten amendments to the Us Constitution and, in doing so, prove that you are twice the idiot that I supposed you to be.