I think the interstate commerce clause is the most abused part of the constitution used to extend federal jurisdiction over far too much.
Also there is a basic principle that I think is important to consider when looking at the states rights question. Government which governs best is closest to the people. The closer government is to me the more likely it is to be responsive to my interests and demands.
I have very little chance of personally affecting a bill in congress but I can go talk to my mayor and tell him what I need and he may actually listen and if he doesn’t I can move to the next town over that does.
So the federal government should have the fewest laws and the local government should have the most. In our current system that seems to be reversed.
Historically, this lead to a lot of discrimination and oppression. “government which governs best is closest to the people” would be a tragically laughable principle for most African Americans and other groups.
I had been thinking about starting a thread on the federation / unitary state continuum, and how one can arrive at some best fit. Or even if that’s possible.
How well did this basic principle apply to black people, especially in the slavery and reconstruction eras? How about gay people? Religious minorities like Muslims and Jews? The idea that local government ‘governs best’ is not really borne out by facts, unless you happen to be solidly in the most powerful group in your area.
The idea, in general, is that the Federal power is supposed to be limited to what the Constitution allows it to have jurisdiction over, and the individual states were going to cover the rest. I agree with this approach in general, although this can obviously be abused, as seen in the case of various civil rights issues.
Over the course of the countries history, Federal power and oversight has increased in incremental bits, and there is difference of opinion amongst the citizens in how much is enough, or too much, Federal control.
In practical terms, people argue for the level of control that is most likely to achieve a result that they favor.
For example, when the Bush administration wanted to push to include “abstinence only” in sex education, many folks argued that local control is better (because they didn’t want to be forced to teach some approach that has poor “success” rate vis-à-vis teen pregnancy).
I think it’s a solid principle, as long as we hold certain things not subject to a popular vote. Two wolves and a sheep don’t get to vote on what’s for dinner. What those things are is debatable, but certainly civil rights are among them.