Non-Sequitur will now quote one of John Marshall's logical demarches to you, from Marbury vs. Madison or Ex Parte Bollmann, etc., etc., etc., etc., prominently featuring Marshall's novel theory -- which he contradicted when he was a ratification convention delegate in Virginia in 1788 -- that the federal government needn't respect the 10th Amendment, but can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, praise be the federal government.
All of which is buncombe, of course, and proof that, on the bench as anywhere else, "personnel is policy".
Which suits Non-Sequitur just fine, since he finds the confines of Original Intent so ..... stifling. I mean, the poor man can't burn down Georgia, until he gets some relief from the party-poops who sat in the Philadelphia Convention.
I think Chief Justice Marshall's point would actually be that states cannot abuse the 10th Amendment at the expense of the other states. But I don't doubt that you would disagree with that.