Nullification: Winning States Rights Guarantees Freedom from Tyranny

I'd like to respond first to the comment out of the gate that the Constitution does not grant or reserve powers for the Federal Government. As a matter of fact the first three acts exist for the very purpose OF outlining those rights that fall to the three branches of the Federal Government. To say the Constitution grants no powers to them is dishonest to say the least. Without those powers granted to the Federal Government in fact, the Tenth Amendment would be moot, as it's specifically worded to grant the States those powers NOT granted to the Federal Government. That the States must agree to these terms is irrelevant, that's the point of a democratic nation. The bulk of your second argument is historical rhetoric. The states did fight against Britain, the aggressor. But those same states, following the war, also proposed that George Washington be made King, not President. George Washington would be in the position of a Federal Government official, the exact thing you accuse of tyranny, and yet declined the offer. As for your claim that the Federalists were strongly against the Bill of Rights, some certainly were and this was a basis for many of the Federalists papers, but much of the ideology behind the Bill of Rights is what made the Articles of Confederation fail. Recall that we did not start with a Constitution. Originally the states were governed by the Articles of Confederation which showed a great deal of respect for States' Rights, which in turn let to a very weak central government, one which could not govern over the conflicts between the States. It was not a matter of tyranny, but a matter of creating a unified nation rather than 13 separate ones. As much as I would love to argue immigration law with you, the pertinence seems to be a debate in and of itself, as President Obama has the record for most illegal immigrants deported and the more progression in immigration reform and protection of the borders than his predecessors. Otherwise, citizens in other Southern states, without the consent of any government, federal, state or local, have taken it about themselves to police the borders at gunpoint. The issue with immigration is it is a foreign policy matter as much as it is internal. Foreign policy can't fall on the states individually because having 50 states with 50 different policies is asking for trouble. Additionally, it's an interstate issue - it isn't something each state has an individual problem with. To assume states' should retain those states' rights violates the very reason we abandoned the Articles of Confederation - because it didn't leave the ability to deal with interstate conflicts and problems. Additionally, Arizona can't have individual immigration laws, because the issue arises that if say, Texas, has stricter laws, can the citizenship be crossed over? If it can't than that violate the essence of a country and we may as well split into 50 separate countries. I never once said the federal government is incapable of tyranny. Any government, corporation, group or individual is capable of tyranny. But a state government is just as likely and logically more likely in a democracy, as like I said before, it's much easier to gain control of a state, which is less diverse in ideology, than a country. Your last paragraph is rhetoric. I look forward to your response.