Do you think that stops Washington? You have just identified the single biggest problem I have with the federal government - it eagerly oversteps its bounds. That the power grab happens with the full participation of the Washington establishment of both parties does not legitimize it in the slightest.
If a power is not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states. If the ability to limit a right is not listed in the Constitution, then the right belongs to the People. Amendments X and IX, respectively. Perhaps the least-read (or at least most often ignored) paragraphs in DC.
Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Are you any more qualified than, say the USSC to decide for America what laws are constitutional and what aren't? That's what elections are for. we all have differing opinions on what is legitimate and what isn't, so that and a dollar will buy you a fair cup of coffee.
If a power is not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states. If the ability to limit a right is not listed in the Constitution, then the right belongs to the People. Amendments X and IX, respectively. Perhaps the least-read (or at least most often ignored) paragraphs in DC.
So then you would agree that the gay marriage issue is properly a state issue? So by your definition, every citizen has a right to an F-18 in their driveway? Or can the government enforce reasonable limitations? How about free speech? Can the government enforce a law preventing someone from shouting fire in a crowded theater?