[MACVSOG68]

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.

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?

[highball]

So then you would agree that the gay marriage issue is properly a state issue?

I would. Unless and until an amendment to the Constitution is passed making this a federal matter, this is solely the province of the states to decide as they see fit.

So by your definition, every citizen has a right to an F-18 in their driveway? Or can the government enforce reasonable limitations?

"Provide for the common defense" is listed in the Consitution as being the role of the government.

How about free speech? Can the government enforce a law preventing someone from shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a free speech issue. If direct harm to persons or property is a foreseeable inevitable consequence, then it is properly the province of the government, as listed in the Constitution. Free speech doesn't enter into it. What limits would you put on free speech?

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.

I guess you consider the Constitution to be one of those "living documents", then. Not me - I don't think Constitutionality is subject to popular vote.