I used to reference the Reynolds opinion in conjunction with the Everson opinion since both opinions completely ignore the 10th Amendment. But Reynolds has no reference to the 10th Amendment protected power of the states probably because Utah wasn't a state at the time.
Also, consider that in Justice Black's fervor to use Jefferson's words to help justify Black's treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause, Black seems to have overlooked that Jefferson never stressed, to my knowledge, a connection between the establishment clause and the "wall of separation".
"In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947. http://tinyurl.com/8q3d8
Again, contrary to Justice Black's "profound insight" into Jefferson's "wall of separation" and the establishment clause, we've got two historical extracts where Jefferson acknowledges the unique, 10th A. protected power of the states to address religious issues.
Read the VA statute on religious liberty, which Jefferson also penned. It sums up Jefferson's views nicely. The pertinent section reads:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
Not only the 10th, but the 12th as well.
I think one of the biggest perversions of the Constitution is the 'supremacy clause'. Here's what Madison said about the limited power of the federal/national government;
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
It would make perfect sense, because the 3 branches of government are separate, but EQUAL.