> a limited set of enumerated powers (among them: foreign policy, national defense, regulation of interstate commerce)

Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of "interstate commerce" is roughly "any other powers they might care to have". The Tenth Amendment has essentially been superseded by the Commerce Clause since the New Deal.

A significant subset of people in the US insist the federal government has overstepped its powers, using "interstate commerce" to inappropriately expand federal authority. With the forthcoming change of federal government, in the years ahead it's likely there will be some paring back of federal overreach. Whether that's a good or bad development remains to be determined.

US states were intended to be semi-autonomous regions which reflected cultural distinctions of residents inhabiting the original colonies. The different "flavors" of American culture have more or less persisted, even in today's mobile population there are still nuances that make the cultures of states unique.

> With the forthcoming change of federal government, in the years ahead it's likely there will be some paring back of federal overreach.

That's wishful thinking. The President-elect has already announced reforms heretofore considered well beyond the President's legal authority.

The commonly-heard Republican slofan of "States' Rights" is only heard when Democrats are in power. (And likely vice-vers

"US states were intended to be semi-autonomous regions which reflected cultural distinctions of residents inhabiting the original colonies."

Like slavery.