Should the states be more forceful in expressing ...

The doctrine of states' rights was violated, not "recently," but consistently over the last eight years. 

It began after Election Day 2000. The Florida Supreme Court unanimously called for a recount of the state's votes

Republicans appealed to the US Supreme Court which ordered the state of Florida to STOP COUNTING THE VOTES. Two of the Justices who overruled Florida were appointed to their posts by George W. Bush's own father. Now what could be a more stunning interference with states' rights?

But it goes further. President George W. Bush ignoring pleas of state governors sent national guard units into Iraq depriving the states of the emergency services these guards provide.

How many more people could have been rescued in New Orleans had the state militia had a full presence there? How many cities find themselves with fewer law enforcement officers and firefighters because those who belong to guard units were mobilized and sent overseas? 

In Florida you had courts following state law. A husband had the right to remove his brain-dead wife from the treatment that kept her body alive. President Bush had Congress rush through legislation which violated any doctrine of reserved powers by granting federal courts jurisdiction. Thankfully, the federal judges deferred to the state of Florida.

When voters in California voted to approve the use of marijuana to those patience undergoing the rigors of chemotherapy, the Bush Administration announced it would indict and prosecute any doctor who participated in the program.

When same sex marriage was sanctioned by state legislatures or recognized by state courts, it was the Bush administration which called for a Constitutional Amendment to deprive the states of this authority.

President Obama has been rushing federal funds to states to enable them to retain law enforcement officers, firefighters, and teachers who might otherwise have been laid off.

Federal stimulus spending will transfer the costs of rebuilding roads, bridges, and tunnels to the federal government, relieving the hard-pressed states of this burden. 

By saving thousands of jobs through stimulus packages and bail-outs, the Obama Administration has come to the rescue of states who would simultaneously face reduced income tax revenues and greater spending to cover unemployment claims.

While the rights of states have been under assault by the Bush Administration, it is the Obama Administration which is restoring the balance. 

One of the greatest abuses of the federal government against the states can be seen in unfunded mandates, that is when the US government requires states to do something (for example, add elevators in all multi-level public schools) without providing adequate funding to get the task done.

What we have here is precisely the opposite. Congress has mandated that certain things be accomplished and is providing the states with the funds to accomplish those tasks.

Consider this issue on a local level. If a state legislature sends a town money with instructions to repair the local sewer, should that town be able divert those funds to build a new bridge? If so, state government becomes a joke.

In some matters (family law, educational requirements, patients' rights, etc.), the states should be as individual as the fingers on your hand.

But on other matters, matters that affect the entire nation (the national highway system, the electronic grid, air pollution, unemployment, etc.), the states must be as coordinated as the fingers that make a fist.

If a state legislature authorizes money be spent for a specific purpose, the Governor can't redirect those funds for something else or refuse to spend the money.  This would most likely result in the Governor's impeachment.

It would be illogical to assert that while the Governor must follow the state legislature's instructions regarding state funds, he or she should be free to ignore Congress's instructions regarding federal funds.

Yes, but it will have to be in a conservative state. Unfortunately,  I'm in the weanie state of California, led by the "girlie-man", himself (who  isn't really a Replublican).

Why was it OK while Bush was in office????