Instead of just complaining.
There are supporters of states' rights that complain that the federal government is usurping all state powers and meddling in state-level affairs. But time and again I feel that the only thing that's in the way is inaction.
As you can see from Article V, the states have the ultimate power to change the Constitution via convention.
If enough states are dissatisfied with the federal government, such as the current Congress, then they can band together and demand another Philadelphia Convention. Now what would happen there is up to debate, but assuming that it works well, the states can then convince the rest to ratify the changes.
Article V of the United States Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
My opinion is this: in practice, I don't agree with states' rights movement at large since the federal government does have necessary roles. But I do see the need for respecting home rule.
My main issue, though, with states' rights advocates is that the answer's right in their face and they're not using it. If they want the changes so badly, they should speak up to their state legislatures and realize that states can act on their own if they would only cooperate.
edited 20th Feb '12 12:51:09 PM by abstractematics