Sure. But the power has to be granted to the federal government by the constitution. The US can't just pass a federal law and proclaim that it's now taken that power from the states. Or at least, it should not be able to do so without running afoul of the 10th amendment. So it is unconstitutional if the federal mandate cannot be tied directly to a power granted to it by the constitution.
Sure it can, that's what the 10th amendment is for. It says that if the federal government doesn't explicitly cover a power, then it's implicitly left to the states and the people. No where does it state that the Federal government can or can not seize any power.
If you want to believe Jophiel's interpretation of the 10th amendment, then you have to show where the constitution explicitly defines what power can or can not be held at what level. Else, you can't say that a particular action is "unconstitutional" to be held at a certain level without any baseline to compare it to. Your only argument would be "We've always done it that way", which equates to "if it's in current practice, then it is correct". That mentality completely contradicts the concept of changes and amendments in the constitution.
But just to make this as clear as possible. This does not mean that "federal law trumps state law".
You're right. It doesn't. You can add to, but you can't take away.
Unless you could show that what we'd create by starting over would have less gray areas and disagreements, I'm not sure how productive that would be. Baby's and bathwater, right?
We wouldn't be wasting time debating the amendments, i.e. the whole 2nd amendment fiscal. Does gun control infringe on the 2nd amendment? Have a "final" argument and make it specifically clear on what type of gun control on current weapons infringe or do not infringe on your right to bear arms. As a result, no more wasted energy on debating after every mass shooting.
As of now, there is a ton of grey area in gun control because the 2nd amendment was written at a different time for a different purpose and is being pigeon holed in today's society.
Of course, people will always have the freedom to fight any change, but the difference is that the law is based on TODAY'S perspective on life and not 200 years ago when the argument in question was not in question. There's no "guessing" what the founding fathers meant, because it's irrelevant. That alone is the majority of the ambiguity. "You have the right to bear the following arms with the said restrictions". Done.
Well, yeah. The courts' job is to address the cases put before them, not to wander the countryside looking for laws they feel are wrong.
Which is why waiting till that magical time when the SCOTUS decides to address something is less efficient than simply redefining everything to today's society. In the meantime, time, money, effort along with other resources are wasted, when the SCOTUS could simply intervene an end it early.
Maybe it's the Army in me, but I hate wasting time and being reactive. There is absolutely no reason why the SCOTUS can't be proactive.