[mrguyorama]

>states have no standing in enforcing the terms of their joining the union? On the other hand states are allowed, and even forced (by threatening to cut federal funds), to enforce federal laws and edicts, such as drinking age

100% yes. This was the explicit opinion of several founders, to the point of publicly stating that any provision for any sort of "exit" of the union makes it entirely pointless. The constitution forever bound us, purposely, intentionally, and with an explicit supremacy clause that makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.

We are NOT a federation, were never meant to be, and there is no honest reading of the constitution within context that comes up with such a claim.

This was done because the Articles of Confederation was such an abysmal failure that left the country weak, bickering, and basically a bunch of small kingdoms of governors refusing to interact in ways that benefited the country as a whole. We tried the "weak, small, limited federal government that lets the states do mostly their own thing" and the result was very nearly the end of the country in its infancy. The constitution was entirely "Sign this and we be strong together, or we are re-conquered in twenty years when europe gets it's shit together"

[NoRelToEmber]

> makes it VERY clear the Federal government is in charge.

And when the federal government ignores the likewise federal laws binding it and directing its actions? In any other situation, if the executive branch ignores the legislative or judicial ones, it's called fascism.