Replies

The 10th amendment makes it clear that the constitution was specific in the powers it gave the federal government. That only those things explicitly given were included in the federal powers. Otherwise, you're correct, there would be no need to have seperate constitutions. However, it is also true that a bill of rights would not be required eitehr if the states could simply ignore those rights at their whim.

They were not given the rights that were reserved to the people as the 10th says explicitly.

You cannot be an advocate of states rights and ignore the fact that the tenth tells us all that states do not have the power to deny rights. They only have the powers that are not reserved for the federal government.

Thus for instance, they may regulate commerce which occurs inside of their state but not what occurs between their state and another. They may regulate any activity which is not a right of the people.

Thus for instance, they may regulate commerce which occurs inside of their state but not what occurs between their state and another. They may regulate any activity which is not a right of the people

. And some examples of those activities?

That only those things explicitly given were included in the federal powers.

Wrong.

There must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to the most minute details. It is a general principle, that all corporate bodies possess all powers incident to a corporate capacity, without being absolutely expressed. The motion was accordingly negatived. Indeed, one of the great defects of the confederation was, (as we have already seen,) that it contained a clause, prohibiting the exercise of any power, jurisdiction, or right, not expressly delegated. The consequence was, that congress were crippled at every step of their progress; and were often compelled by the very necessities of the times to usurp powers, which they did not constitutionally possess; and thus, in effect, to break down all the great barriers against tyranny and oppression.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1900--1901

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs9.html