Gotta love replies!  Thank you very much for the (right now!) few of you who have found me and taken the time to comment.

From Buzz:  "States' Rights is an Antiquated Notion

During colonial times and through the era of the war between the states, the concept had some merit, as means of communication and transportation made the distances between even neighboring states vast and daunting.  Separated by such distances and largely populated by people of like demographics, beliefs and thoughts, each state was, in essence, a separate, sovereign nation state with its own agenda.
In the 21st century, when communication is instantaneous and travel between any points in the country is almost immediate, nationwide conformity in laws is a concept whose time has come.
Of course, those laws have to recognize that individual rights reign supreme throughout the land and that no crme exists without the four necessary components of crime: 1) perpetrator, 2) victim, 3) demonstrable harm and/or loss, and 40 (an) act(s) of force and/or fraud."

From jjones 29:  "Agree silvertrombone (corrected:  silvertrombone is all lower case!)

I shared many of the same thoughts and quotes in my post!

http://savetheparty.townhall.com/g/a4e104ef-3add-4b49-aa23-c1425ab734c9 "

Thank you both for posting replies!  And I'm never against a shameless plug for someone who agrees with me!

First, Buzz, I make no assumptions about your education, intelligence, or political belief system.  However, from what you posted, you really need to go back and look at a couple of things:

1.) The Constitution of the United States of America, for one.  It is not the United States Constitution.  If you are listing Colonial era and War Between the States stuff to me, you get the difference.

The States wrote the thing.

The States ratified the thing.

The States have amended the thing many times since.  If you don't think the States run this show (or at least  should according to Article 5 and the 10th Amendment), you have a lot of re-reading to do.  Should have paid more attention in high school civics class.

2.) I highly recommend the Madison Notes, the very detailed transcripts taken by future President and "Father of the Constitution" James Madison of the deliberations of the delegates of the States to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.  It is interesting to see the Constitution come together day by day, passing first from the Articles of Confederation to the finished product that we still today call our Constitution.

3.) The Articles of Confederation.  Entertaining read.  Terrible system.

4.) I could be snotty and say go read the "Little Red Book," since that is what one national government would quickly devolve into, but we don't need to go that far.

Simple fact:  The States run this show.  At least in theory.  For you to say "States' Rights is Antiquated"  is many things, but factual it is not.

I love how you mention "Individual Rights" at the same time you blast "States' Rights."  At least you use the correct punctuation (States' with apostrophe signifying plural possessive).  Who exactly do you think will protect "Individual Rights?"  The Supreme Court?

Hmph.  You don't know history very well, either, I see.  Check out how many times the Judiciary has screwed things up.  You mentioned the war between the states (as opposed to the incorrectly titled term 'Civil War'--good for you, again!).  So why don't you explain to the kiddies at home about Dred Scott v. San(d)ford.  The Supreme Court couldn't even spell it right--why should we have expected them to get it right?

Talk about how, despite Dred being completely wrong, the ensuing war, the disastrous period of Reconstruction, three Constitutional Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act of 1878 (I didn't know about that one until doing research on that era!), the Supreme Court still mucked things up in Plessy v. Ferguson.

Yeah, yeah, Brown took care of that--60 years later!

Take a look at the rest of my blogs if you haven't done so already, and don't try to tell me about the necessity of one set of national laws--nobody in Washington or in their right mind believes that.  Not Sen. Hillary Clinton, not Sen. Barack Obama, not Mitt Romney, not Rudy Giuliani.

If these guys won't make that argument, who do you think you are to be doing so?  Please provide more of an argument than, "It's time for something else."

Great.  Then amend the Constitution.  That's how to get rid of States' Rights.  But beware, brother, when you start talking about repealing one of the Bill of Rights.  Talk about a slippery slope!

Amend it.

Repeal it.

Follow it.

But don't continue to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America.

Time to go back to history class, boys and girls, and the Internet sits at your full disposal!

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm