[tpaine]

Whatever, -- apparently, you think there is some sort of big point to be made about early constitutional arguments.
'Huge' or not, after ratification they were not arguments on the basics, imo; -- with the 'states rights' exception, of course. - Damn shame that after that was settled by the 14th, - we still have large political groups that think government has the power to legislate infringements upon life, liberty & property.

They never learn.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Early constitutional arguments settled many outstanding questions about exactly what the constitution meant. Many issues before the Court made it clear that the meaning of the document was NOT self-evident and, in actual fact, is so complicated that even legal geniuses of a high order were confused about it. That is the issue you refuse to face with the Jeffersonian version of constitutional interpretation.

States still have the rights they should have, the abilities to make law affecting their residents. That has not been changed by the 14th merely the "right" to deny their residents' rights protected under the constitution.

States lost their principle constitutional voice when direct election of Senators replaced legislative appointment. Senators were originally to serve as equivalents as those sitting in the House of Lords and were to be the voices of the States. Given the composition of my state's legislature I doubt this has cost much. Most of them are filled with corrupt, second rate political hacks.