"Social" conservatives - it seems like "social" conservatives still want the rule to come from Washington over States Rights...
Fred is a Federalist - and the United States is a Federalist government - per the Constitution. Washington is supposed to have few rights over the states and it's people to decide it's laws.
The main reason for Washington is do those things we, at a state level, cannot do alone or for ourselves, the main thing being to protect us against foreign enemies.
Fred is NOT against the things you accuse him of - he is for those rights to be returned to the STATES where they belong - where you and I and all others can have the say of what goes on in our back yards - where we live/
I thought republicans have been screaming for decades for less big government? Then along comes the first man that just is determined to bring that about and you 'social' conservatives are screaming bloody murder for the power to be kept in the hands of Washington.
So, one can wonder, are you 'social' conservatives the socialist republican counterpart to the socialist democrats?
We either go with a leader who will cut off the power from Washington and return it to our hands in our states - or continue on the slide into total SOCIALIST control from Washington that overrides = unconstitutionally = our rights - and responsibly - to determine these issues for ourselves in our home states?
Federalism is about the powers of the federal government under the constitution. I am federalist when it comes to issues like how expansive of a view the courts should take of the power to legislate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. However, when we amend the constitution federalism does not apply because any constitutional amendment is by its very nature within the powers of the federal government.