[int_19h]

> As for unalienable, we 'aliened' those rights by limiting who they applied to.

Not quite. The "who" was always citizens. The catch, rather, was limiting whom the restrictions on limiting applied to. Under the original, pre-14th Amendment interepretation of the Bill of Rights, it only placed restrictions on the federal government (indeed, the First makes it explicit, with its "Congress shall make no law").

States could still do whatever they wanted - the check there was supposed to be the corresponding state constitution, and, indeed, most of them had some checks, in many cases with verbiage directly derived from BoR.

As for "states rights", while it is more often a dog whistle for allowing states to infringe on someone's right, this is not necessarily always the case. It can also be about allowing states to protect someone's right against an encroachment by the federal government. "Sanctuary cities" are a canonical example of how some states exercise their states' rights (in this case, the right to not cooperate with the federal government) to protect someone.

[CalChris]

Thanks. I'd add that Sanctuary Cities are expressly disobedient. They're saying we won't enforce these Federal laws here and they're not relying on a mis-reading of the 10th to do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

States Rights and, worse, Sovereign Sheriffs are wrapping their malarkey in constitutional nonsense.

[int_19h]

My opinion on the 10th is that, while "sovereign citizens" and other similar movements distort it to the point of meaninglessness, the standing mainstream judicial interpretation (that it basically means nothing at all) is also a heavy distortion of the original intent, and is harmful to the stability of our federal system of government.

But then, I am a states' rights liberal - a species so rare as to be considered mythical by many.