[Sharkfish]

Gordo, I too have struggled to understand the erosion of state sovereignty as intended by the founders. I do know that the U.S. Supreme Court did consider the issue of the withholding of highway funds based on a state's drinking age. The decision upholding the law basically turned on an esoteric argument that driving is a privilege not a right, or some other such BS. I no longer practice law, but in law school, my professors could not rationally support the supremes decision.

You should also look at various web sites and organizations supporting a renewed commitment to the 10th Amendment. The discussion on those sites is compelling. Start with http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/.

The 10th amendment has often been cited as a basis to challenge Obamacare, but given the vast expansion of the Commerce Clause and even something called the "Dormant Commerce Clause" and the "Necessary and Proper" clause, Supreme Court precedent is not favorable.

[y2gordo]

And this is precisely why I think we need a new amendment to clarify the meaning of the 10th amendment. The Commerce clause and the 10th amendment being so vague, I think it would be helpful to establish a clearer guideline for establishing states’ sovereignty.

Simply renewing a commitment to or better enforcing the 10th amendment will take too long since the courts are so overly dominated by progressives/liberals. I also fear it wouldn't be a lasting solution since it would require the constant, active drive of the people to maintain it. People and generations can be prone to be lazy, and an amendment might help to protect the country in those times.