From kindness I've attributed that to hero-worship.
This thread is about the ideas expressed in a particular writing which is essentially a condensed version of a recently published book more completely expressing the idea. Pointing out the fact that everyone of your posts is based upon incorrect assumptions about that book which you have not even read is not ad hominem. I'm just trying to focus you in the right direction so you can actually make a point.
If you want to point out the fact that abandoning states rights or giving unelected judges the power to define unenumerated rights is unwise, fine. I agree. Whoop-de-freakin'-do. It has nothing to do with this thread, which is about a particular writing that is consistent with both of those views. If you could actually form a rational thought as to why it is not ("it" being the ideas expressed in the writing and not what your stereotype libertarian believes), I'd love to hear it. I'd be surprised, but I'd love to hear it.