Tnls argument you just made (your "checklist"), is kind of a tautology, isn't it?

I mean, it brings us "full circle", doesn't it?

Because, now wer're right back to considering Constitutional questions.

Yes. The People have the right to make laws. Some of those laws conflict with Rights, in which case they may be un-Constitutional, and some of those laws conflict with Powers, in which case they may be un-Constitutional.

The Constitution is therefore an "outter boundary" on the content of laws. It doesn't regulate whether the People can pass laws, and it doesn't even regulate the content of those laws -

What it regulates, exactly, is the application of those laws, "after the fact". In other words, the Court "interprets" laws, which is its function.

So this is my claim, that the Tenth, was originally intended to be an outer boundary on Powers, in the same way that Constitutionality is an outer boundary on laws.

But it's one of those things that's either been corrupted or ignored through history, my best read so far is that the first major change was the Jamilton-Madison thing, and then it was really the Civil War that cast that "loose" interpretation of the Tenth firmly into stone (or seemingly so) -

And only just now, Scalia's name appears as a blip on the Tenth's radar screen, it's like "Hello..... what is this?"

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but what Scalia is essentially saying, is that the Tenth trumps "general welfare" in this case. Is that your read?