I suppose a more complete descriptive label for the USoA is a "Federated Constitutional Republic".

True, the new (in 1789) central body of the federal government (in contrast with the Confederation or Confederated government created by the prior charter document)  was more powerful than the Continental Congress.

By 1791 the new charter had been amended to preserve sovereignty of the States.  I force myself to think of the states as fictitious entities, just like a corporation.  Recently I saw a headline on Freedom's Phoenix which reported that at least one, possible two maybe, states passed resolutions declaring that corporations were not people.  States aren't people either.

People are real.  People have rights.

In a republic, the people are the (only real) source of power.  They make that Lockean bargain wherein they surrender a few rights for the protection of the rest.

The 10th amendment is a division of labor statement.  It divides tasks among the central body of the federated constitutional republic, the state bodies of the federated constitutional republic and the human bodies (individuals) of the federated constitutional republic.

In conjunction with the 9th amendment, the bill of rights is a very strong people-power document.  It strengthens considerably the statements regarding the republican (not to be confused with the major political party with a similar sounding name) system of government in the original 7 articles.

Natleson paraphrased "rights" as "exceptions to power".  If you can have "unenumerated exceptions to power", you can't have unenumerated powers in the same document.

Yet Hamilton used a phrase "implied powers" in support of establishment of a national bank.

That being so, it became convenient very early on for some to ignore the constitution.  Doing so is not a recent development.

I doubt whether another amendment related to State powers will fare any better than the 10th amendment.

DC Treybil

I just thought that as the Judiciary generally attempts to weasel its way around the intent of the Constitution, without providing us adequate reason, that it perhaps would be good to tighten it up so there is no longer any misunderstanding on the issue. Couple that with my other suggestions of Citizens recourse against the Judiciary through a mandatory and satisfactory redress of grievance and delineation of the specifics of what constitutes the government’s determination to affect the common good and it would at least cause the States to reestablish this very basic foundation.        

Nobody wants a bloody war.

While most of the people feel the pain, most of them still don't understand what's going on, or about true freedom.

One of the biggest things necessary to do is to convince law enforcement, whether it is the military, the police, SWAT, parts of the CIA or FBI, that the freedom side is the side that is legal. Otherwise these jokers just might go out and do whatever their bosses tell them no matter what is legal.

One of the big jobs we have is to educate ourselves about what went wrong with the Republic, so that we don't simply repeat it if we happen to win. The question has always been, how do you keep corrupt people from gaining any kind of control... from the common thief, all the way through all the different levels of life and Government, to the top echelon of the Power Elite. (No desire to take away any freedom from the Power Elite or anyone else. Simply a desire to protect one's self from their slave-making schemes.)