You should understand that the members of the House Representatives DO NOT REPRESENT THE STATE--they are elected by and represent the people. When the Constitution was drafted and subsequently ratified, this was the subject of a great deal of discussion. At the Convention William Patterson of New Jersey proposed a legislature wherein each state would be equally represented. This was rejected by the larger states (and especially by Virginia) who insisted that the legislature be apportioned by population. The "Great Compromise" which was instituted to resolve this dispute allowed a Senate to be apportioned equally by state, and initially those Senators were chosen by the state legislatures--so it can reasonably be argued (aand it is supported by historical fact) that THE SENATE REPRESENTS THE STATES. But the House of Representatives, apportioned by population and elected by the people, represents ONLY THE PEOPLE, not the state.

Further, the framers of the Constitution fully understood that by instituting a new government, which would derive its authority from the people, they would necessarily take some powers away from the states, such as the powers to collect tariffs, maintain a military and naval establishment, and regulate interstate commerce. Since they were also realists, they did not submit the proposed Constitution for ratification by the states, but instead insisted that it be ratified, within each state, BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OR A CONVENTION OF THE PEOPLE, thereby neatly sidestepping the existing state legislatures. So the actual fact of the matter is that NO STATE EVER JOINED THE UNION, THE PEOPLE JOINED THE UNION. This was done in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the federal government in the face of anticipated state challenges, and to assure the supremacy of federal law over those of the several states.

The states are NOT "the agents of the federal government." In fact, they are not even a part of the federal government, which is in fact a compact among the people existing separately and independently from the states. This leads us to the uniquely American concept of "dual citizenship," under which a person is simultaneously a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State wherein he resides. This Tenth Amendment movement is interesting, but it has no real foundation in history, in law, or in the Constitutional form of government the American people adopted in 1787 and 1788.

There is a way that the states can assert their rights in the face of perceived federal interference and intransigence. The Constitution itself provides that a convention must be held when called for by two-thirds of the states (see Article Five), and that Amendments to the Constitution may there be proposed. I suggest that you go for it--if you have the nerve.