In December 2019, the US passed a law to ban the sale of tobacco products to people under 21 years of age. The problem with this? This is a law coming from the federal government. Under the country's constitution, isn't it supposed to be the states responsible for passing laws about this sort of thing? Now, the argument could be made that there needs to be a federal country-wide law, to prevent those under 21 from just crossing state lines to buy tobacco products, but there are other possible ways to handle that issue. For example, the federal government could allow states to allow younger persons to buy tobacco products so long as they show a state ID card indicating proof of residency. This is yet another example of Constitutional principles being thrown out the window in recent times. When the federal government decided to raise the drinking age to 21 in 1984, they did not impose it directly. Rather the federal government threatened to withhold 5 percent of federal grant transportation funds to states that did not pass a law raising it themselves. This was enough to push all states into compliance. (one state actually objected to this at the time, but the US Supreme Court upheld the law. see South Dakota v. Dole, 1987) The issue to discuss here is not about raising the tobacco purchase age, but about respecting and holding to the Constitution. If the federal government can do this, then it means they could ban the sale of anything, even over the objections of specific state governments who vehemently disagree.
Cynically, "states rights" died here in Virginia, Appomattox Courthouse, 1865. I wouldn't hazard a guess the date the Constitution became just a tourist attraction at the National Archives, although invoking it still makes good campaign rhetoric.
There are many examples of usurpation of power by the government. Sadly, the US Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.
