Its complicated even further in mulitple other ways. Lets say that a couple owns property in another state- say VA- and that property according to VA law isn't considered subject to either the civil union arrangement or anything else. In theory a family could have come in, and invalidated any wills that was against VA public policy even when it was with the wishes of the voters of NJ about its citizens. The dragonian amendment that just passed says exactly that. Luckily the court side stepped it there, by applying the laws as though the parties were only subject to the laws of the state of where they had the civil union. But, this is a loophole, and one wonders how long it will last. Indeed, other states as conservatives to use this may block such side steps of their laws. This can only get messier.

well if you are mr conservative you would know that the interpretation of the 10 Amendment to mean this is a modern construction rather than based on strict construction or original intent. That conservatives are willing to break their own rules rather than follow presedence of what equal protection analysis has been in this country says a lot about their values. That they are fickle and based on their prejudice rather than application of the law as it is.

Also, there is no way they can argue, even under 10 Amend that, because if they did, it would mean that they dont support Brown v Board because basically any protection offered by the 14th amendment could expressly be so limited. ie, you can't have affirmative action laws because no rights specifically named aren't supposed to be found. You can't have requirements that equal protection means brown v board because nothing requires that sep but equal really means unequal. you can always find some way to somehow make it equal in every physical way possible. same schools, different side of building, etc.

The argument fails because either one believes in the analysis or one does not. Carving out this specific exception for a class that one wants to discriminate against means one can do the same legally in the future for other cases. if you don't think women should be protected under Title iX you can use the 10th amendment. Indeed, someone over a d kos honestly argued that very position.

His argument is that historically rights were being given at the state level. When i challenged him to give specific examples, he did, but then I challenged him to prove that this would have happened across the country. ie, he would argue- well it happened in NY and CA, and so, eventually it would have happened elsewehre. When I asked him, based on what does he conclude that it would have, should have, may have happened somewhere else when even recent history refutes this notion. Most states had gotten rid of their anti gay sodomy laws,a nd yet  Texas managed to arrest two men in their homes based on it. And, in terms of issues like the death penalty, TX and my homestate until the S Ct required otherwise were still executing the mentally retarded. He had no response back to my very long breakdown of how in almost every instance he was asking the minority in question to trust the good intention of the majority which is implicity against the very notion of what the bill of rights is about- it is to do the opposite- protect the minority from the caprice of the majority. Even in terms of the religious clauses- they are to protect minority religons from majoritarian dictates.

The best argument he could come up with of his list of arguments was labor, but even in that realm, it was a flawed argument because it was the majority being protected rather than the minority. In fact, the reslt of the 10th Amendment in this area- which is where as I remember it has been most recently applied- is to decrease protection for workers rather than increase it.

Finally, I would call bullshit. Meaning, I wouldn't let them fake like they are being conservative. It's like with kelo- which like conservatives I hate the decision- but I don't pretend I am being conservative to say that I dislike it. I know that there is n othing in the Constitution that prevents such a wide interpretation either historically or in precedent. So, any argument would have to be to grow what we think of the constitution to mean. So my first goal would be to get them to admit that they are doing this here. By so doing, I am forcing their hand about whats motivating their dishonesty.

ps, I want to make it clear- to accept the conservative argument that the 10th Amendment limits the other amendments like this is to implicitly say that the 10th Amendment trumps all other amendments under the constitution. In effect, it would make it a super amendment having powers to block any ability for judicial interpretation. There is no reason why equal protection should apply to women, or ethinic groups,e tc if this argument were true because the 14th A was created as response to slavery so one could argue (although i disagree based on 150 years of S Ct decisions) that the 14th A only applies to blacks. Would they accept such an argument? If not, if they say that it is broader, then how can that be the case? the 10th amendment, by their own logic should limit the reach of other amendments.

one other pt- a lot of what I am saying is by memory rather than anythign I have looked at recently. For example, I just remembered , but I am not sure if it happened, that the 10th Amend was used by the slave states to say they could do what they want in antebellum South, and that it was one of the things they used to say the could ceed from the Union- but I maybe confusing historical arguments. The pt is- that it wasn't something that was accept as a reasonable argument in either event.