As well as this, a unilateral government would throw the entire system of checks-and-balances out the window, as the branches of government would support themselves without question.

Not to mention that the federal law that got Lopez into such trouble was found to be unconstitutional, and passed by a corrupt government that did what was in their best interests. Even if it was done for moral purposes, Congress should not overstep their boundaries and allow the states to have their 10th amendment rights.

However, you must think of the existence of the supremacy, commerce & necessary and proper clauses. These make Congress capable of circumventing any dispute that the state governments have in most cases. The federal government has the final say over the United States, and the state government has no power to dispute or fight against the federal gov't in most cases. Although it worked in U.S. v. Lopez, that was a lengthy court case that could have easily been swung in favor of the United States at any point. The 10th amendment is NOT enough to defend states against the tyranny of big government.

An army would only provide power to the federal government. As I've stated in many of my previous arguments, corruption is easily facilitated within the form of government that federalists desire. Should a standing army be created, then that will only provide another means to the oppression of the people.

Bernie Sanders is a federalist through-and-through. His current beliefs on the education system and healthcare relies heavily on taxation in order to be carried out, a power that the Articles of Confederation explicitly denied the legislative branch.

A centralized government is often the most corruptible and affects the most within the country. Majorities and minorities will always exist, however, the freedom of having separate governments will allow those to escape the corruption of their localized governments. It's much harder to do so within a corrupt federal government.

While you are correct in this assertion, the main issue is Congress's ability to bypass the Constitution in some circumstances. Yes, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1992 was found to be unconstitutional in a short time frame, only two years, but imagine how many times that law was used against the people and how many federal convictions could be made within two years. The amount of time does not matter; the Constitution is capable of being circumvented, allowing the federal government to oppress the people.

A "universal law" that was found to be an over-assertion of power was the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1992. Had it never been found unconstitutional by a desperate court-appointed lawyer given a hopeless case, then it would have stayed in power and been left unchecked for years. Who's to say that there aren't laws like that still in place? The "checks-and-balances" provided by the Constitution have NOT worked in the past. The federal government's Constitution seems to be only a parchment barrier; what's stopping Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the President from infringing upon the rules set before them?

One of the main issues regarding the Constitution is centered around the "enlightened" leaders taking power. As seen in recent years, especially with the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1992, those in power that serve the same agenda will often agree with one another regardless of how heinous or unconstitutional the act is. Should we be faced with a unilateral government, partisan bias will change the definition of "enlightened leaders" into something that supports the agenda of a single group, creating a tyrannical government that does not do its part in defending the minority nor the majority. Whoever controls the power shall control the people.

The Constitution removes power from the States and makes them dependent on an all-powerful central government that, if not kept in check, will become totalitarian in nature. As seen in the historic 1992 case, U.S. v. Lopez, the federal government overstepped its boundaries by creating a law that was found to be unconstitutional, as it did not fall in line with the Constitution's "enumerated powers". Had this case not challenge the law, then the injustice would not have been rectified and would remain, perhaps even to this day, in effect. What's stopping the federal government from disregarding the Constitution entirely and becoming yet another tyrannical, all-powerful monarchy, similar to Colonial England?