Again with 'State's rights'.

[Associate Justice PiT]

...
     Perhaps so, but even if it were totally unarbitrary, there is no excuse for compelling people into allegiance towards any entity through force. Simple as that, really.

Compulsion in some form will always be a part of any society. 

     But ideally, you could choose who would compel you, rather than just be force to support some authority determined based on where you live.

[Free Palestine]

States dont have rights to sacrifice.

What I meant was, if the states were actual nations, they'd have powers of foreign trade, taxation, and a military, etc.  They'd also have the right to, for example, limit freedom of speech and other things to their liking.  When they're all bound into a federal system, these are powers the otherwise independent states don't have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how state sovereignty is any more of a "fetish" than the desire for an expanded federal government and a president with unilateral power.  We're the United States of America, not the Uniform States of America.

Centralization of power works both ways.  Remember the Federal Marriage Amendment?  If Obama doesn't shape up we'll have a Republican landslide in 2010 and 2012, and they can force their will on all fifty states.  Because nobody in the GOP leadership believes in smaller government anymore.