Robert

This is the first I have heard about this interpretation of the Constitution.

It has been my understanding that when the 13 colonies got together, it was understood and enshrined that the states controlled much of their own destiny. The feds were given the military, economics, and international treaties, but everything else was up to the states to decide for themselves.

As time passed, the feds bribed the states with tax money to be more involved in state affairs. For example, I believe the interstate highway program of the 50s and 60s was mostly federal money--and the states bought into it because they realized the economic stagnation if they didn't. But internal transportation infrastructure is a "state right".

We could argue for a long time whether such highways should be a responsibility of the state or the feds.

In Canada, the authority and responsibility of the federal government are fairly well spelled out. There are areas where the feds cannot interfere, like health care and education. And there are areas that are grey as Canada is a much different country today than it was in 1867 when these rights were first delineated. But Canada is very much a federalist nation, with provinces having certain legal rights.

USA has also been categorized as a federalist nation. If what you are saying is correct, then the states essentially have no rights: authority and responsibility can be taken from them at any time. If so, this makes the USA a unitarian nation, not federalist. In which case, it seems pointless (to me) for any state to sue the federal government for anything--and the federal government has ultimately the final say.

I would like your thoughts on this.