&gt; and then passing laws in Texas that forbid local cities from making minimum wage laws. Why aren&#x27;t they yelling about &quot;city rights!&quot; Obviously because it doesn&#x27;t fit their agenda.<p>I agree with everything else you&#x27;re saying, but as for the example of states&#x27; rights vs. city rights, - while this may appear to be inconsistent, it isn&#x27;t necessarily. It appears to be a contradiction if you interpret states&#x27; rights to be an affirmation of delegation to smaller forms of government on pure principle, but that&#x27;s not what it is.<p>Advocates of states&#x27; rights base their argument on the Constitution, which specifically affords states (and the people) all rights that aren&#x27;t provided to the federal government[0]. States reserve this power because the federal government actually draws its power from the states, not the other way around[1].<p>This isn&#x27;t an argument that generalizes to the sub-state level, because incorporated cities and towns draw their authority from the state, just as the federal government draws its power from the federation of states that form the union.<p>You may or may not agree with the extension of this argument to advocate for the various things that states&#x27; rights advocates promote, but I&#x27;m just pointing out that this isn&#x27;t actually a paradox.<p>[0] The tenth amendment is the most notable example of this, but there are other parts of the constitution in which states are treated as having far more sovereignty than any other subdivision of government: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...</a><p>[1] Historically, this is obvious: the states had to ratify the Constitution before it ever even came into effect!