Freedom Strikes Back

[Darius871]

All this does is defer to the wishes of the state.

Not according to the text, which surely does not defer to the state where a federal power is "delegated," and certainly not according to the sole authority for its interpretation, which has rendered it a dead letter...

"[The 10th Amendment] added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sprague

The amendment states but a truism... . There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby

In other words don't be fooled Hera - "states' rights" are defined solely by the contours of federal power, which is itself a product of A) interpretation by federal courts and/or B) restraint exercised by elected federal politicians. There are no other means by which states might influence their relative power.

[SlowwHand]

The United States has discussed this at least once in the past. Our position is no different now than then.