It depends on how you look at how the 10th was created, and how it has been used, and abused.
Thomas Paine stated in Common Sense that representatives of the people would go to whatever capital and represent that local area, but would be replaced after a period of time because that person had either: gotten attached to the capital politics, or grew out of touch with the area they had come from. This was described in the evolution of a community that had grown over time in a country.
Course in his second paragraph of that same pamphlet (I believe it was, or maybe the first), he said that government was a necessary evil and that we"…furnish the means by which we suffer." We have to have government in order to keep order and law as a society (natural society, natural law, natural rights), but it is also the facade we are burdened with when it becomes ugly but was created and used to support our house. The support column is needed to keep the roof from caving in, but some new tenant just pained the once clear finished walnut wood bright pink.
Thomas Paine pins the whole reason of the Revolutionary War: Virtual Representation versus Actual Representation. Virtual Representation is when anyone from the country can represent you in the capital, no matter what side of the river you are on. Actual Representation is when someone from your side of the river represents you in the capital. In the 15-18th Centuries, Virtual Representation was the rule. Anyone from the British Empire can represent anyone in the British Empire…which means anyone from North Wales can be appointed and represent someone in Virgina. Two total different areas and problems.
The 10th Amendment is partly written because of the Virtual v. Actual Representation problem…it still is a problem. It lets states govern their local problems where the larger government would not understand.
Yes, the 10th Amendment needs to be exercised. But the problem is that Virtual Representation has taken hold with the encroachment of big government. This is because of the Civil War. Were the Southern States legal to secede? Under the 10th, it could be argued. Under the Preamble, no, because it interfered with the “more perfect Union.” Lincoln’s intent was solely to preserve the Union until the aftermath of the Battle of Antietam when it was clear the Civil War was not going to be short, and Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and made the war about Slavery in order to stop the British from supply the South. Reconstruction made the South pay for their “betrayal.” But it also expanded the power of the federal government, but not under Lincoln…since he was shot.
I honestly believe that Lincoln would have not been as harsh to the states as many of the Republican legislatures had…anyways…
Up until the 1960s, the Federal Government had been doing their part considering the foreign problems the early and mid 20th Century, however, the government has been doing bad things domestically that ARE in clear violation of the 10th Amendment.
What the government has done is create an environment over time to get back Virtual Representation back and creating voting blocks to support it. Look at the cities versus rural areas and their voting habits. Spigate cities are not taking votes away from people who have totally different problems.
Even if states go with the 10th Amendment, the rural people are going to have to contend with the large urban areas.
