Tenth Amendment + Christian Constitutionalists = South Carolina?

I saw a post at Cynical-C about The Christian Exodus, a
plan Christian Constitutionalists (have you taken your 'pledge of loyalty' yet?)
are hatching to take over the state of South Carolina. Since Christian Exodus
mentions using the 10th Amendment to the Constitution in their scheme, I listed
some info about the 10th Amendment below from Wikipedia:

"Amendment X (the Tenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution,
which is part of the Bill of Rights, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment is generally recognized to be a truism.
In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the
amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified".
That said, it makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited
only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution. However, this amendment
is narrowly interpreted, so that a law will generally not be overturned if there
is even a remote connection to a constitutionally-given power, often the power
to regulate interstate commerce.

The Federal government has used the general welfare clause and
the interstate commerce clause to justify federal laws regarding a ever
increasing list of things that can be argued impact commerce or welfare.
An example frequently used to illustrate this point is the Wickard v. Filburn
case in which growing wheat on one's own land for one's own consumption
was ruled to impact interstate commerce.

Another controversial technique Congress has used is to deny states
federal funding if certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines.
For example, the national 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limit and the national
21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would
lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. The government,
having the power to tax but not the power under the constitution to force
states to pass speed limits or citizens to give details of their economic life
(such as in income tax deductions), achieves its desired end by taxing and
not returning a portion of what has been taxed unless the states and individuals
"voluntarily" comply for a return of what was taken from them by the
power of taxing.

In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone"
on and around public school campuses was struck down because there was no clause in
the Constitution authorizing it. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment."

Maybe they just want to cozy up to some nice cocks. South Carolina has lots of those.
--