Though the occasional pol may blather on about States Rights, he knows not of which he speaks. Or he does and doesn t care that he is lying to you. I rather hope for the former. It would seem the latter is a less loaded term. Those likely to advance such an argument are normally conservative Republicans and, thus, disproportionately from the South, where States Rights has a special place in the vocabulary.
Familiarity breeds repetition.
Federalism has fallen so out of use that the average Joe Taxpayer is likely to confuse the advocacy of federalism with an endorsement of Big Government. This kept the states from caving into their various lobbies by stifling competition through trade barriers and raising separate armies to blow each other up. A series of barriers also existed to stifle the expansion of the national government. Senators were appointed by state legislatures to look after not only the interests of the respective state but the power of its politicians as well. Under this system, the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court were inherently weak offices and not necessarily where enterprising politicians wanted to end up.