Your sense of consistency is by no means perfect either. You want one form of consistency and yet would not even comment on the one that might be of concern to some.....DOMA. In the 1950s and early 1960s there was much discussion and many cases that involved states rights and the limits of federal authority. Like it or not those cases have consequences for today.
Scalia and Levin HAVE used exactly those words.
Look I am doen with this. Go do some reading. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. Just because a citizen has an opinion does not guarantee that it is correct
I'm all for DOMA, which by allowing states to enact or reject same-sex marriage protects the states' rights that you are content to see violated by the federal War On Drugs.
In the 1950s and early 1960s there was much discussion and many cases that involved states rights and the limits of federal authority. Like it or not those cases have consequences for today.
Of course rulings by the liberal SCOTUSes of the past have consequences - ones that should be rejected by conservatives, and whose overturning should be supported by conservatives.
Scalia and Levin HAVE used exactly those words.
That there are "limitations to the Constitution"? Prove it.