There is a long, and many would say ignoble, history of prominent American politicians arguing for the primacy of the states over the federal government. What is the basis for this claim, and does it hold water?
The argument is usually premised on the fact that the 13 states that ratified the Constitution existed before it did. The flip side of this, however, is that the vast majority of our current 50 states became states after the ratification of the Constitution, with the permission of the federal government, under conditions set by the federal government. As to the original 13 states, their boundaries and political systems were initially created, not by some Lockean agreement of their citizens, but by the King of England and groups of influential English courtiers; to cite one example, Pennsylvania was essentially the payment of a debt owed by Charles II to William Penn’s father. The American Revolution was fought to free us from these people. Why would we rely on them as the basis for our political system today?
If you don’t accept the first-in-time argument, you must then fall back on the idea that the locals have the most knowledge of local conditions and should therefore be permitted to govern themselves. That being the case, blue cities in red states should not have their legislation preempted, right? Right?