The People are the States, and vice versa. We have 50 People(s) and 50 States, and each State is a People, "the People". So when I talk, or rather Elaine Scarry talks, about powers reserved to the People, she is talking about the States<=>the People.
That was why the refusal of certain States to answer Lincoln's call for Militia to put down South Carolina by force was momentous. They answered his call with Mutiny, on the grounds that they were no longer in the Union and didn't want to kill Carolinians to appease his bankster associates in New York and Massachusetts.
Their refusal to serve, howbeit they had "grounds", was an absolute right, Scarry tells us: The right of the cartridge box, to refuse service in a bad cause.
The People of those States found the Republican doctrine of State enslavement to the federal government and its soon-to-be-forthcoming abolition program (and railroad land-grant program, and tariff program, and land giveaway program, and much else) to be odious and would contribute no troops to his purpose, but stood up their Militia for their own purposes.
The 1907 rewrite of the Militia Act (I think the 1795 Act, as amended, was still on the books) was something Theodore Roosevelt called for, to legalize and regularize his use of the Militia in foreign wars 10,000 miles away (the Philippines, specifically). That National Guard Act was and is problematic (not politically then, when the GOP had a death-grip on all branches of the federal government), and it needs to be readdressed to cure TR's executive overreach. That, or the Constitution needs to be amended to give the Executive what they've been (illegally) doing for 100 years, viz., committing us to foreign wars, engaging in hostilities just short of war, and conscripting people willy-nilly and eclipsing their rights completely in order to send them halfway around the world, many of them one-way.
But even then, the States can rebel, and we saw where that went. I guess it was a matter of plurality.
Even if a solid majority of States told Obama "no", do you think that would deter him from attempting, at least, to "discipline" or even "reorganize" them as John Quincy Adams theorized and Lincoln put into bloody practice?
The precedents set by Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson have convinced many people that if and when the President tells the States to "jump", they must jump or else. They are, people think, legally prostrate and utterly helpless before USG, as before an Oriental despot.
I beg to differ, as legal persons they are totally different.
So when I talk, or rather Elaine Scarry talks, about powers reserved to the People, she is talking about the States<=>the People.
Insofar as the Tenth is concerned, they may share attributes, but they function entirely differently as entities. For example, an individual cannot constitute an entire board of directors. An individual cannot adjudicate contract disputes. There are all sorts of business activities that require more than one person and therefore a third party to settle disputes. They are not the same.
On the other hand, corporate and individuals do share attributes, such as your example with South Carolina.
Their refusal to serve, howbeit they had "grounds", was an absolute right,
You are not going to get an argument out of me that the States don't have a Natural Law right to secede; they clearly do. Lincoln was wrong about a lot of things. His ends did not justify his means.
Re TR: He was Morgans butt boy all righty.
That National Guard Act was and is problematic (not politically then, when the GOP had a death-grip on all branches of the federal government), and it needs to be readdressed to cure TR's executive overreach.
No argument there, but it's not exactly atop my Pareto chart. TR was the cheese who built the navy that made the financial panic that provided excuse for the Fed. See above. Yet before we get into war powers, I actually think amending the Constitution to clarify the supremacy clause as regards treaties, change the threshold for ratification either to the 3/4 of the full Senate or State legislatures, and rescind the 17th, are much higher on my list.
Still, I'm with you if what you intend is to dispense with the professional standing army in favor of compulsory national service such that we can return law enforcement to the people.
Even if a solid majority of States told Obama "no", do you think that would deter him from attempting, at least, to "discipline" or even "reorganize" them as John Quincy Adams theorized and Lincoln put into bloody practice?
I don't think there is anything this creep wouldn't attempt if he thought he could get away with it. Hence my comments about Sulla.
I think the idea of compulsory government education has had more to do with inculcating Federal authority than anything.
BTW, this conversation has been much like the old FR: a respectful exchange of thoughtful interpretations of historical facts without acrimony. It’s been pretty dispiriting here by comparison lately, so thank you.