“States Rights” runs ahead of reason, once again

"Federal Government takes almost no one to court "like 1% of all prisoners are in a Federal Prison"

There are a lot of key distinctions you missing in this conclusion. Let me start:

1. The tenth Amendment: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"

The Only powers the federal government legally has are those expressed in the constitution and nothing more. State law governs most areas (Consequently there is NO Federal law making Murder illegal. Believe it or not Murder is state crime only governed by State law. ) So a violation of state law will put you in state prison as opposed to federal prison which is usually reserved for federal income tax evasion and other white collar criminals that have violated Congressional laws.

2. The % of people incarcerated in federal prisons does not necessarily correlate with the number of citizens the federal government takes to court. Why? Three reasons: First: 80% of Federal court cases are Civil NOT Criminal. Incarceration is not a remedy for someone found liable in a Civil court case. Secondly: Federal courts can achieve jurisdiction over state law claims.(all they need is subject matter jurisdiction, or diversity jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction) Thirdly, with a state's permission the federal government can house federal prisoners in state prison. Alternatively there are privately owned, for-profit prisons, that can house federal prisoners.

3. You are also missing a key distinction between the executive and judicial branches. The F.B.I. (executive branch) in cooperation, with state authorities can enforce state laws. Which will land criminals in the State's judicial system.(normally not a problem except permission is often sought after the fact).

Next let’s examine the idea we need to apply the Civil war and the 1960's to Federalism and States’ rights in 2010.

If you are going to compare federalism from the Civil war era and 1960's you can't just look at the states from then and now. You also have to compare the power of the federal government from then to now. As you said during the civil war the Federal Government "basically didn't fucking exist."

You also said in 1960's States violated most rights and that may be so. But let’s fast forward 50 years to 2010 and look at the scales of federalism to see where the balance of power lies. For the following reasons I am going to say it is dangerously unbalanced in favor of the federal governed:

1. The interstate commerce clause in the constitution has been so broadly interpreted by the federal courts to give the legislative and executive branches nearly limitless power.
Case in point: Wickard v. Filburn The Supreme court ruled the interstate commerce clause gave the federal government the authority to regulate how much wheat an Ohio farmer could grow. The U.S. Department of Agriculture wanted to suppress the supply of wheat to raise prices and through some Constitutional gymnastics the Court said that when an individual in a state grows food this affects interstate commerce thereby giving the Federal government the power to micromanage how much of a crop you can grow on your own farm..

2. Federal Administrative Agencies. The federal government is on auto pilot. Administrative agencies fly in the face of “separation of powers concept.” They have legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Administrative agencies make regulations that have the force of law. They police the people looking for violations of their regulations And they conduct administrative hearings and decide disputes.(these decisions are subject to appeal to the federal courts but the standard for review is hefty and courts almost always defer to the agencies judgment.) Such concentration of power tips the scales of federalism even more in favor of the federal government.

3. The Patriot Act- warrentless wire taps, power to indefinitely detain, expanded power to subpoena private information. NO state has these police powers to so blatantly violate your rights. The Patriot act breaks the scale in favor of the federal government.

For the above reasons the scales of federalism are out of balance. A revival of states rights is necessary. In 2010, the above reasons are driving the states rights movement, not slavery from the civil war, or pro segregation from the 1960s.

One more note:
“Laboratories for democracy” is not a mere talking point. It’s a legal and governmental theory that was first summized by Justice Brandeis and it is highly appealing to progressives as the following article by Ralph Nader demonstrates:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0531-12.htm

I am a life long resident of Boston and "Busing" was a disgusting, evil, inhuman part of the fabric of Boston's History for ever. A bloody, racist stain that should never be forgotten. I have to disagree with you completely about "Support the Troops", meaning "shut your mouth during the war"...I don't doubt many ignorant people confuse opposing the war mean you don't the troops. At least, I can assure you that all we ask is that you support the troops (simply by hoping that we return safety to our friends and families.)

I realize this is not a popular opinion and I support the Patriot Act, I realize the ease this can be abused and the just how dangerous it can become. I know on current I am considered extremely militant (betting a lot worse)...but the only the Federal Government has the resources and access to intelligence and technology to effectively use the Patriot Act to aid in National Security. If states had these same sweeping (police is the wrong word) security powers, we would see more abuse not less.

The article description was edited from "states that accept bundles of fed $$" to "that get more in Fed $$ than they pay out"

The thesis of my argument is not which region recieves more federal tax money :[

"As to the rest of your argument, there is no doubt that the term states rights has been ?used to repeatedly try to deny the minority citizenry in the south their rights; i.e. civil rights, voting rights, abortion rights etc..."

That doesn't; address the thesis of my argument either.

The thesis being that IN 2010 the scales of federalism are unbalanced.
and conclusion being its beneficial to people from all political stripes for it to be balanced again.