I understand the overlap, For example, the Oklahoma city bombing. The murder of the federal agents on duty fell under both federal and state law. That conviction got MacVeigh the death sentance, not for every murder.
However, when the beltway snipers murdered an off duty FBI agent, federal law didn’t apply because the woman was not on duty.
Like it or not, we have a constitution in this country. I thought conservatives were supposed to be in favor of State rights under the 10th amendment.
I think you analogy to begin with is no less than the Wookie defense that avoids answereing the question I posed because you cannot answer it and be consistent.
My analogy to begin with was simply a turn-around on your analogy to another poster. So if it was a Wookie defense it was no more so than yours was. Those who think the federal government was correct to step into the Shiavo case are not the ones claiming an all-or-nothing position.
Conservatives are for state's rights. Some of us also recognize that states have to be kept in check from time to time and are not separate little countries when they want to be and part of the Union only when the goody-bag is opened. States don't get to redefine murder or decide not to punish it.