Correction: They did not intend to "give up" ANY power, to ANYONE. And they didn't.

Did Bill Gates "give up" power to the general manager of Microsoft? Of course not– he simp DELEGATED power.

Same with the states: the phrase used is not "surrendered" or "granted," but simply "DELEGATED."

Question: What part of "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence," do you NOT understand?
Otherwise, that's simply the end of the discussion– unless you don't know what "sovereignty" means.

NO. Madison made clear in Federalist 46, that state militias could have easily taken out the federal army.
The reason Lincoln succeeded, is that people were IGNORANT as to the national sovereignty of each state.

Instead, he resurrected Jackson's argument from the 1832 Nullfiication Proclamation, i.e. that the states formed a SINGLE NATION, simply because their various associations had the word "united" in them.
From this, LIncoln concocted that "The Union" was the only nation among the states, and that it held national authority over ALL of them.

Of course this is preposterous; thre is NO document which recognizes any such "The Union" as a nation.
Lincoln simply made it up– and the people followed, because they were too DUMB to do anything else.

Because they believe it is a NATIONAL government– which, by definition, DOES have unlimited power.

You can't say "the government has the power to judge the LIMITS on its powers– EXCEPT; " there are NO exceptions, where the supreme power to use FORCE is involved.

This is just the stumbling-block of just about everyone: they just can't seem to get their heads around the fact, that written agreements won't stop King Kong from stealing your share of the bananas.
They think that just because something is written on a stupid PIECE OF PAPER, that this wil stop federal bayonets, bullets, H-bombs and everything else that the fed throws at you.

I hate to say this, but– "HELLOOOOOOOOOOOO? ANYONE HOME? Funny, the LIGHTS are on!"

This statement is denied by its very meaning: for it IS a federal consttution, not a NATIONAL one; and hence, the states retained their respective sovereignty simply because they didn’t expressly RELINQUISH it.

In any other example, few would claim that one sovereign nation became the property of another, simply by failing to expressly RETAIN it in a a treaty, compact, or any ohter dealing: certainly, no nation has ever done this– or forfeited its sovereignty for failure to expressly do so.
The Articles of Confederation, only expressly retained the “freedom, sovereignty and independence” of each state, simply because they didn’t officially HAVE it yet, except by mutual recognition among the “states” themselvs; there was still the claim of Great Britain to deal with, the most powerful nation on Earth at the time.
In constrast, the Constitution was written AFTER the states had won their sovereignty; therefore they were equal to any OTHER sovereign nations, in the sanctity of their respective sovereignty against incursions or “defaults.”

This paper was not intended to answer the question exhaustively, but simpy to ASK it– in that it NEEDED asking, and nobody else was doing it… or at least not directly; either they’re afraid to say “the Emperor’s naked,” or they simply don’t see the forest for the trees.

The states and the people never gave away the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence. “History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government.”– Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947)

If the states felt that the federal government was not living up “to a more perfect union” they had retained every right to pull out of that union. “Every act [contrary to] a delegated authority…is void. To deny this would affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize but what they forbid…. The Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. -Hamilton, Federalist No. 78.

If the people of the states wanted to pull out of the union, why should they be stopped by the other state, as long as they do violate the rights the other states while taking their action?

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”– Thomas Jefferson. The states never intended to give up “rightful liberty”, the ability to say “no more”.

I would direct your attention to the history of the 10th Amendment, including the version of the 10th Amendment in the Articles of Conferation.

Under the Article of Confederation, for example, the general government was limited to the express powers provided by the Articles: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” Similarly, some wanted to amend the Constitution to include the general governments powers to those “expressed,” but yet such a limitation was not added into the 10th Amendment. See http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs6.html.

This history suggests that implied powers were countenanced by the founders, so in answer to your question of who would interpret the 10th Amendment to not read “expressly” into the amendment (even though your claim the Amendment requires it), I would say anyone who is familiar with basic doctrine of statutory interpretation. For what a legislature omits is often something that the legislature intended to exclude, particularly where it was previously included.

So despite your argument that the ideas in my previous post were “fallacies,” I am pretty comfortable with the general government having both express and implied powers. The efficacy of that Amendment (or rather the lack thereof), however, is something that I agree with you on. I don’t think it is as toothless as the courts have found it to be. See, e.g., United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).

One other point as well: yes, the preamble does indeed have no force of law when it comes to granting powers. That is why I did not rely on it as authoritative proof of my premise that the relationship between the general government and state governments was not what Mr. McCandliss describes. I included it to say, “for my money,” why I thought the powers of the federal government should be interpreted more than just loosely holding together a confederation of states. If it was merely that, I do not believe the preamble would have been written to say that, to use your words, the constitution was written so as to provide for such important matters as the common defense, justice, domestic peace, general welfare, and liberty. The states have interests in all of these things, so what does it say that the constitution was drafted around providing to the federal government a strong role in each of these areas. I think it says that the states opted for a strong general government.

Now, as for the other fallacies in my prior comment. What, pray tell, are they. Do you dispute that Andrew Jackson dealt with States’ rights and nullifcation long before Lincoln? Or perhaps that history often depends on who is writing it?