When the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to draw up a new constitution, there were a variety of conflicting concerns that they had to deal with. They had just split from Great Britain with its supposedly tyrannical monarchy and were fearful of vesting too much authority in the executive; at the same time their initial experience of self-government had proven disastrous because, lacking a clear central authority, they were unable to handle certain issues, like foreign trade and regional disputes. (The latter was one of the reasons why George Washington promoted the constitutional convention: he had "western" lands which couldn't be developed because there was no vehicle to establish valid legal claims.)
Also, the colonies considered themselves for all intents and purposes independent sovereign nations. They differed culturally and religiously in many ways. Slave-holders from Virginia weren't about to have a bunch of abolitionist Puritans from Massachusetts tell them how to live.
Also, remember the smaller states weren't going to join any government where they would be at the mercy of bigger and more populous states.
The Founding Fathers, through careful deliberation and compromise, drew up a constitution which answered most of the concerns.
To handle national issues like trade, foreign relations, war, and interstate commerce they created a national government with certain enumerated powers. What powers were not specifically given to the federal government were left to the states (states rights). To limit the power of the executive (President), they established a legislative branch whose laws could only annulled by veto of the president, which in turn could be over-ridden by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
To satisfy the concerns of the big vs. smaller states, they created two houses of Congress: a Senate with two senators from each state and a House of Representatives based upon population. The electors who chose the president were also a compromise in this regard; their number was based upon the total of the senators and representatives for each state.
It was further agreed that the Constitution would include a Bill of Rights. For the most part, these were the "hot button" issues of the times. In attempting to quell dissent and ultimately rebellion, the British had attempted to suppress free speech, the ability to assemble, the freedom of the press, the right to bear arms; these all got their protections. Since one of the primary motivations for immigration to the colonies had been the desire to worship freely, the amendment forbade Congress from establishing a state religion, as was the case in Great Britain with the Church of England, and they granted absolute individual religious freedom. Interestingly, the prohibition on the establishment of religion did not extend to the states. At that time, numerous states had "state religions", such as Puritanism (Congregationalism) in Massachusetts, and they weren't about to give this up. As states, they were simply restricted from coercing citizens to belong to these religions. (These "state religions" were later disestablished voluntarily by the states.) The people at that time would have considered it twaddle that people couldn't pray on government property. The first act of Congress was to appoint a minister to open sessions with a prayer; the Supreme Court still displays the Ten Commandments prominently (a right they have prohibited for state and local courts, which seems a bit topsy turvy when you consider the original idea.)
Almost as an afterthought, the Constitution provided for a federal judiciary (the Supreme Court). Its powers were not specified, and its composition, other than it would have a Chief Justice, was left up to Congress to determine. It was debated in committee at the time whether this branch should have the power to review and invalidate laws as "illlegal." After much debate, it was agreed not to. Regardless of how this would be done (requiring a unanimous vote of the Court, or allowing congress and the President to over-ride it's rulings by a two-thirds vote, etc.), it was considered that granting this power to the judiciary would inevitably result in its ultimately becoming a de facto legislative branch comprised of unelected members. Whether laws were "unconstitutional" was left to the conscious of Congress, the President through his veto power (hence his oath to "defend the Constitution"), and ultimately the voters. It was only later that Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison performed a piece of judicial legerdemain and acquired this power for the Supreme Court. (When Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter of the Bank of the United States, which had just been ratified by Congress, and included his reason that he felt no private institution should have such power -- a policy position -- he was universally vilified as a tyrant: vetoes were to be based on constitutional grounds, policy was the province of the legislature. Remember the famous cartoon of Jackson, sitting on a throne, crown on his head, sceptre in one hand, veto in the other, the charter under one foot and the Constitution under the other? That's what that was all about.)
But to the question. . . It certainly seems the initial idea that the federal government should be restricted to waging war, negotiating treaties, and settling disputes between the states, and the rest left to the local states, has pretty much disappeared. And not the elected President wielding unlimited an unrestricted power, but the unelected Supreme Court. (There are only two ways to restrict its powers: to simply ignore its rulings -- to wit, Andrew Jackson's famous statement, "Mr. Marshall has ruled, now let him enforce his ruling!"; and removal of justices by impeachment -- this was attempted only once, during the first half of the nineteenth century, and Congress proved unwilling to remove a justice for something other than malfeasance).
For the most part, this aggrandizement of federal authority is probably unnecessary and unwelcome. Whether persons from other states may disapprove and not emigrate thereto is probably of small consequence to people in the state who wish to live like they want to, not the way people in other states want them to. (Note Gov. Perry's line -- "If you come to Texas. . .")
However, state's rights has a dark side: it was used before the Civil War as a prop for slavery, and later as a prop for segregation. It was only the Supreme Court through powers it had appropriated for itself, and the federal Congress with civil rights laws, that this unequal treatment was eliminated. (Whatever your view of Obama, it's instructive to remember that at the time of his birth, many states prohibited marriage between the races; these laws were ultimately stricken down.)
So where do you stand? We all probably wish to be left alone and live as we please, each state establishing laws as it sees fit, as long as these don't violate the Constitution. But take gay rights. They aren't anywhere in the Constitution. At the time of its signing, and for a couple hundred years thereafter, homosexuality (sodomy) was illegal in all the states, and it has only been recently that these laws have been struck down.
Should states in the West be bound by rules for land use more appropriate for more populous eastern states?
Should communities be allowed to take your property for the "good" of the community, as recently ruled by the Supreme Court, rather than for the "use"[/] of the community as stipulated in the the Constitution? (The difference is that "use" means that property can be appropriated so that a highway can be built there; "good" means that developers can tear your house down and replace it with more tax-lucrative developments, like condos or shopping malls. (The Crown had appropriated people's property and given it to the King's favorites, and this was the reason for the amendment in the first place).
It's not an easy answer. The right to live and be left alone can sometimes mean the right to piss on the less unfortunate. Where do we draw the line?
