"Human Rights" Vs "States' Rights"

Since at least the onset of the US Civil War, groups of people within individual states have used parts of the US Constitution to support nefarious anti-democratic activity under the banner of "States' Rights." Below are some reasons why states' rights do not trump human rights and why the federal government is the final arbiter in protecting both human rights and democracy:

"The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago." (link)

"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. - - - " (link)

Human rights are embedded within the US Constitution and its Amendments. (link)

One has to be willfully ignorant not to see what is happening within both federal and state governments, as well as small and larger groups of organized civilians, to defy human rights by acting outside of laws protecting such. It is not unusual for these folks to cloak their action within the "States' Right" meme. Consistent with this is the phenomenon of the "Constitutional Sheriff." Click on the link below for a podcast delving into the history of sheriffs and this concept of such:

The "Constitutional Sheriff" Myth

- - - - - - -

A point to ponder: bodily autonomy is a universal, precedent-supported human right. Why is the US Supreme Court essentially finding that such is a "States' Rights" issue?