I. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The Declaration of Independence states: ". . . [A]ll men . . . are endowed by their Creator with . . . Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . ." This statement alone draws the basis for the rights-powers dichotomy. Men (i.e., persons) have natural rights; these same people create the governments - they are therefore a fabrication, artificial, with nothing inhering in them. The governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed - their creators - for the sole purpose of securing persons' natural rights. The remainder of the document flows from this distinction, and in fact appears to form the basis for the Declaration.
II. THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS
The first 9 amendments either directly mention rights of the people, or imply the word rights while referring to them. The 10th refers only to powers of governments, as does the 11th. The other amendments are similarly constructed, many including the specific phrase (or variation thereof), "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." This can be re-constructed to read, "Congress shall have power to enforce these rights by appropriate legislation.
III. TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION
Article I, Section 1, begins, "All legislative Powers herein granted . . ."
Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have the power . . ."
Article II, Section 1, begins, "The executive Power . . ." (Other "powers" are specifically referenced.)
Article III, Section 1, begins, "The judicial Power of the United States . . ."
In all cases, references to what the government may or may not do is termed powers, not rights. The reverse is true for persons, whether individually or collectively.
To me, the distinction is not just an important one, but a crucial one. No government has a right to anything, including its own existence; strictly speaking, it has no existence of its own. It is, instead, an artifice we have created to secure our natural rights. Our rights, not its own. The most a government can claim appearing as rights is authority to use its powers for the purposes designated. This authority is important, as the founders found out under the Articles of Confederation the result of a government with no powers or authority; but it is not identical to rights. Any discussion of government "rights" begs the question of an individual or individuals exercising authority to execute government powers, merely because they have the power(s) thus granted.
Having no rights, then, the government also has no interests; though it will exhibit characteristics of human beings - being composed of them - it is not a person except in some legal (?) fiction. Only people have interests. This powers-rights dichotomy is true for government at any level - U.S. or State (local governments' existence and powers derive from the State, if I'm not mistaken, under the U.S. Constitution, they being not mentioned at all). Thus, States cannot have rights.
Wrapping back around, then, to the issue of what is termed "States' rights," it is clear there is no such thing. The only time the issue really comes up is when the U.S. government legislates, enforces law or interprets law, in a manner contrary to the desire of a certain faction (i.e., interest group), who has found a State government more sympathetic to their interest. While it may appear up front that the "States' rights" argument is a legitimate expression of 10th Amendment application, note that the amendment refers to powers, not rights; and also note that the conversation becomes multi-dimensional and complex when applied to a specific situation - whether government powers or individual rights - rendering the more general argument specious.
Thus, I assert that no governmental entity has any rights whatsoever, nor do the persons that hold offices in that entity, except insofar as they hold the same individual rights as the rest of us. The phrase "States' rights" refers to something that does not - cannot - exist in a free society. The proper framing of any argument regarding State versus U.S. powers must fall into the realm of powers - whether delegated, reserved, shared, inherent, implied or withheld - and must be applied to Constitutional interpretation / application of specific powers, rather than as a generalized political philosophy, lest we degenerate into a de facto anarchy in which might, ultimately, does indeed make right.