I guess what they meant was that when the States are finished deciding what powers are theirs, then 'the people' will get what's left. Thank god the state only passes a couple thousand new laws each year, or the people might someday find the cupboard bare. LOL. Well there is always the 9th amendment. Look, I don't remember who said it but it was very true. "The people get the government they deserve". That is a very profound statement and should give all of us pause.
I'm wondering if an initiative could ever be considered a 'redress of grievences' should a majority of the people in a particular state oppose a law that might happen to be passed by their state representatives. Or are we back to 'electing' those who will do the people's will? What if the onslaught of propaganda (taxpayer funded) by the state (which I have a real problem with BTW) continues to produce the desired representative mix that consistantly serves the state (gun-grabbers, WODers, deadbeat dad-ers, tax'em till they bleed-ers, etc.) will the people continue to have no voice?
Just as we respect majority votes in legislatures with regard to making law, wouldn't it be reasonable to respect the majority vote of 'the people' when seeking a redress? In what other form might the voice of the people be made legitimate and apparent to a state that may have acted against their interests?