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.
A Google search on "Mark Levin" OR Scalia "limitations to the Constitution" returns only 2 results, neither of which supports your claim.
The second result does paraphrase Justice Thomas as saying there are "key structural limitations to the constitution that ensure that the federal government does not amass too much power at the expense of the states." One such structural limitation is the Tenth Amendment - I guess Clarence Thomas is another extreme ranter and raver.