But also overturn the Supreme Court's whole-cloth invention, the "incorporation" doctrine.

These two changes would go a long way to restoring federalism and limited government.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: A Lesson in a Free Federal Constitutional Republic http://su.pr/343io3 #10th #constitution…

If they can limit federal force, then THAT'S when they limit federal power; but other than that, it's purely an academic exercise in THEORY.

In order to limit federal power, we must inform the people of the states, i.e. that THEY, not the fed, are the final word on law; then if the fed tries any rough-stuff, it's militia-time.

However until then, the result will be the same as in 1861– i.e. the people will back the fed, and the Constitution won't "limit" squat.

Yes– cite it to the federal government, and see what happens; and if it works, that's proof.

It's simple, as well as direct– but too predictable to be practical: you can either obey them, or go to jail.

Regardless of what the law SAYS, they'll step right over, around or through it: empire is never about truth, but POWER.

regardless of "who said what when–" all it comes down to, is WHO HAS THE BIGGER STICK?

That's what I'm going to ask here, since in my prior attempts, I've failed to communicate my point.

That's what matters: not who has the written RIGHT to use the stick, but who HAS the bigger stick?

Right now, that's the federal government; if they make a law, you can either

1) obey, it, or
2) go to jail.

NO EXCEPTIONS. Your state can't and won't help you– in fact, they'll probably PUNISH you for breaking a federal law.

Alexander Hamilton confirmed this in Federalist Essay No. 83:

“The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer.” (Emphasis not added)

The States are united specially—not generally.

First, there was a separation of power between the States and the federal government. The States are not united within the reserved powers. Each State acts as a separate entity.

Second, after separating powers, there was a grant of limited powers. The States are only united within these powers. Within these powers, the States act collectively as the United States.

Since the Constitution, as stated by Hamilton in Federalist No. 32 would only establish a “partial union” between the several States, the general welfare provision cannot be a broad all encompassing power.

The whole problem with the backward thinkers is that they are so busy trying to argue for why the world should never have been allowed to change like it has that they have no contribution to make at all to the discussion of how we order our affairs in an increasingly more complex future.