Again, I (unlike the current President and ... just about every Democrat in Congress) always welcome criticism.
Ok, the begged question was Do the people and/or the States have a retained right and/or reserved power to require the Federal Government to do something not otherwise specifically delegated to it but also not otherwise specifically forbidden to it? but I dont see that the people and/or the States retained right and/or reserved power to require part is clearly addressed. It seems to be just sort of assumed away with no more than mention of non specific objections and doubts. What did I overlook?
-------------------------------------------------
Among any powers not delegated to Congress could there have been a more needful ability at the time in question than requiring the several States to respect unalienable rights that they should have honored anyway?
I cant think of one.
That matter was addressed in the Declaration of Independence with the words: all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
So, there is a Right of the People to alter or to abolish stated in the Declaration of Independence, which right would, I think, be one of the others retained by the people as stated in the Ninth Amendment.
And according to the First Amendment, the people have a right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Accordingly, they could submit to Congress some form of petition for a redress of grievances said grievances being violation of unalienable rights by particular State governments and said redress, in accordance with the right of the people to alter being requiring the several States to respect unalienable rights that they should have honored anyway. (Stealing some of that from your post)
In Congress, the House of Representatives (on behalf of the people) and the Senate (on behalf of the States at one time but not now) would determine the merits of the petition and the disposition regarding redress.
That still leaves open the question of a retained right and/or reserved power to require the Federal Government to do something not otherwise specifically delegated to it but also not otherwise specifically forbidden to it.
If the right exists, the disposition of the redress by Congress acting on behalf of the people and the States, could be to take action to alter State government by requiring the several States to respect unalienable rights that they should have honored anyway. If the right does not exist, Congress could take no such action legitimately and the disposition of the redress would have to be something else.
If the right does not exist and Congress could not act on the noted requirement, the people submitting the petition for redress of grievances would either have to submit to a government destructive of these ends or try to exercise their right to alter or abolish it. That could be defined as insurrection which might put Congress in the interesting position of providing for calling out the Militia to suppress an insurrection the aim of which was to alter or abolish a government that had become destructive of the ends it was supposed to secure and which Congress, as a branch of a government which is also established to secure those ends, is supposed to help secure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If such a clear and pressing need is not sufficient to justify the Congress exercising a power not delegated then what is?
The question implies Congress acting on its own initiative in regard to the pressing need. What might be sufficient is a requirement levied by the people if they have a retained right and/or reserved power to levy such a requirement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where Field was intentionally confusing the distinction between "Privileges and Immunities" and "privileges or immunities". As I said, it's all a matter in how these are founded.
The former, "Privileges or Immunities",
I assume you meant "Privileges and Immunities".
"Ok, the begged question was Do the people and/or the States have a retained right and/or reserved power to require the Federal Government to do something not otherwise specifically delegated to it but also not otherwise specifically forbidden to it? but I dont see that the people and/or the States retained right and/or reserved power to require part is clearly addressed. It seems to be just sort of assumed away with no more than mention of non specific objections and doubts. What did I overlook?Sorry that I wasn't clear. Like I said, criticism is welcome. It's also frequently useful as in this case. I'll try to do better.