These men claim that 'We, -as a society', decide which rights we will protect --- And if 'We' choose not to protect your right to [drugs, guns, - whatever], so be it. They argue that if and when a majority of the people decide that we should protect a right, then we will; given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.
--- For instance, if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.
Thank you for posting this (#63). To think that state's rights may impose on our Constitution when in conflict with one or more of it's provisions (limitations on government) does not, a conservative make. It reminds me of one in search of paper to stoke a fire and, finding none, reaches for this 'parchment' (with many signatures) and proceeds to light it and toss it into the stove.
The notion that states could undo protections galvanized in the union to which they voluntarily subscribed is anything but conservative. I'll gladly join you in shoving this fact in the faces of those who continue to perpetuate this fraud.