[danmar]

That very well states exactly where the federal govt. had the power to act. The Gov. of FL made a call and told his agent to "see what you can get done federally." That gives the 'application of the executive' (Gov. Bush) and "shall protect each of them against ... domestic violence" spells out the obligation of the U.S. gov. to intervene. States rights aren't upheld or protected by letting them run rogue.

Nice try, no can do!This is your interpretation, not the Courts.

[TigersEye]

It says what it says.

[rbmillerjr]

You shouldn't be condescending and tell people you will keep it "light" for them, unless you are positive about your own position. It seems that it is the very lightness that you speak of that makes you so certain that you are correct - even though you are wrong.

There are plenty of examples of the federal government intervening or challenging state government actions that challenge a citizens' right to Constitutional protections.

It is a dynamic interplay that is not static. It's a moving scale sometimes...there may come a day when certain judicial changes will disallow what happened to Terri Schiavo.

You may think it is as simple as looking at "your" interpretation of the Constitution. But, it is much more complex than that.