1) To stop States from warring each other over disputed Territories.

2) To provide a large Navy so England, France and Spain wouldn’t abuse us.

3) So that states which goods are transported through will not impose duties, imposts, and levies on trade passing through.

4) So that states don’t compete with each other foolishly in trade pacts with Europe.

5) So that the federal government can directly raise an army, rather than each state contributing men.

6) To be able to quell insurrections in states, should they happen.

All these reasons are outdated. And our analysis of the constitution should seek evidence that is was a short term document designed to evolve past its necessity in our countries perilous nascent years.

The real Thomas Jefferson, as opposed the phony atheist Jefferson created by corrupt justices, had actually acknowledged that the Founders had made the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to regulate (cultivate) religion to the states, regardless that the Founders made the 1st A. to prohibit such powers to Congress. See for yourself.

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people…" –Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

Note that although the power to cultivate religion sounds threatening, this is the same power that permits the states to authorize things like creationism to be taught in public schools, likewise for students to be able to pray in school.

So what happened to the 10th A. protected power of the states to cultivate religion? Sadly, anti-religious expression justices had evidently been looking for an excuse to apply the 1st A.'s prohibition on federal religious powers to the states. And such an opportunity came along after the 14th A. was ratified. Corrupt justices ultimately made official a PC perversion of the 14th A. which argued that the amendment applied the Bill of Rights in its entirety, including the 1st A.'s prohibition on federal religious powers, to the states. This is evidence by the following excerpt from the Cantwell opinion.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." –Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The problem with Justice Owen Robert's remark about how the 14th A. applied the 1st A. to the states is the following. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had officially clarified that the 14th A. did not take away any state powers. Again see for yourself.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States >no rights< (emphasis added) that belong to the States." –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

">No right< (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…" –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." –John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

So the USSC's argument that the 14th A. applied the BoR in its entirety to the states, including the 1st A.'s prohibition on religious powers, is constitutionally baseless. In fact, unlike the way that the 1st A. prohibits certain federal powers altogether, Justice Reed had explained that judges were to balance 10th A. protected state powers with 14th A. protected personal federal rights.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment,11 and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." — Jones v. City of Opelika 1942

I surmise that if Christians knew the Constitution and its history as well as they know the Bible, they probably wouldn't be in a situation where they are being "persecuted," their right to religious expression stifled by a secular USSC.

What a mess! :^(

Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 shows that the Founders established the federal Senate to represent the constitutionally powerful state legislatures in the constitutionally humbled federal government. But voters evidently forgot about state sovereignty after the Civil War. Doing so ultimately led to a major upset with the balance of power between the Senate and the House of Representatives, IMO.

More specifically, post Civil War voters evidently began electing state lawmakers who didn’t understand state sovereignty any more than the voters did. So when the corrupt, power-hungry federal government proposed the 16th and 17th Amendments in the early 20th century, naive state lawmakers ratified these ill-conceived amendments, unthinkingly giving up their voice in the federal government.

The problem with the anti-state sovereignty 17th A. is that voters seemingly began using their new power to elect federal Senators to fill Senate seats with state-sovereignty impaired lawmakers, just as they had done with their state legislatures.

The consequence of the 17th A. is that by the time FDR was president, there was evidently nobody in the Senate who was state sovereignty-savvy enough to stop Congress from usurping state powers by rejecting legislation which was based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.

The bottom line is that the phony powers of the Oval Office and Congress need to be destroyed, powers which have actually been wrongly usurped from the states. Voters can take the opportunity provided by the 2010 elections to make state sovereignty a campaign issue which will hopefully help to destroy these bogus powers.