I understand what you mean, and this is where my simple analogy breaks down somewhat (after all, we're attempting to use a simple thing to illustrate a much more complex thing). But if you'll indulge me a little and allow me to return to this analogy, I'd like to try and understand your view.
So, we have the box in the middle of the room, and inside that box, is the federal government, strictly contained as defined by the Constitution. Are you saying that federalism dictates that ALL SPACE outside this box belongs inherently to the states? I know that the constitution of each of those states defines the size, shape, and scope of the box that each state's government exists in, but does this mean that in your view, there is no space inherently reserved for the individual people that make up those states, exclusive of the state's power to infringe? I know, as we discussed earlier, that the courts have not ruled that the 14th Amendment includes the Bill of Rights as being fully incorporated on the States. But it sounds like you're saying that federalism could allow for an individual state constitution to say in essence, "We own ALL SPACE outside the federal government box for the people in our State, and intend to place extreme restrictions on those people because that's what the people want", and that if it really was what the people wanted in that state (by way of their representatives of course, and notwithstanding the Supremacy Clause, due process, etc) then the state is absolutely free to do so. Is that correct? If so, does that disturb you at all? (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess is that you'll say "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty", or something to that effect).
The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.
And as I noted early on in our discussion, this is why, as somebody who values liberty, I do see the appeal of federalism to a certain degree. You sound like you're agreeing that the federal "Blob" has escaped from its box and is infringing all over the space reserved for the states and the people. I guess I'm trying to determine how extensively you view the Constitution as permitting each state to regulate the individual liberties of the people in that state (and it sounds like you're saying "To whatever extent they wish, since the federal government is over there in the box and can't stop it"). I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?
It's too bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.
Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".
OR extreme freedoms, if you will. My heavens, just how did we survive as a country for 150 years prior to the establishment of a federal government?
Our republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers, created a federal government with very few powers. It was the Founding Fathers who trusted their state to protect their liberties.
The precursor to the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, demonstrated how the states guarded their independence -- it gave Congress the power over military and monetary affairs, for example, but no authority over the states to force them to comply with requests for troops or revenue.
Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty. Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away. It's not the U.S. Supreme Court. They've been busy limiting your religious freedom, freedom of speech, property rights and finding emanations in penumbras. Bad enough that these whacky interpretations apply to the federal government -- thanks to the 14th amendment, they also apply to the states.)
"I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?"
Yes, primarily the judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution and forces that interpretation, via the 14th amendment, upon the states. That was not the intent of the Founders. If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example. Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.
Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.