Why not? You're more comfortable with the intrusive federal government telling a state what it can and cannot do?
You are an advocate, then, of an imperial judiciary?
I would say that the shoe is on the other foot. You say that the states are supreme and the masters of their own domains. Yet you seem to have no problem with the courts doing just that. You disagree with the Kelo decision. In that decision the court refused to overturn a state court's decision that the action in condemning the land was legal. So what you are saying is that you don't want states do decide what is permissible but instead expect big mother Supreme Court to step on them and tell Connecticut what they can and cannot do. And in the Heller decision why shouldn't D.C. or one of the states be able to decide on their own what guns should be available in their territory? That's the problem with people like you. You're vocal in the extreme against the overreaching power of the courts and you rail against an imperial judiciary...unless, of course, when you want them to step in and slap the states around. Selective tyranny at its finest.
The states cannot decide what laws they will or will not enforce. They are not the arbiters of what is Constitutional or what is not. For better or worse, only one institution should hold that authority because otherwise you will have 50 different interpretations of what the Constitution actually means. I believe that power should rest with the Supreme Court. Anything else is anarchy.
“You say that the states are supreme and the masters of their own domains.”
Where have I written that?
“You disagree with the Kelo decision.” It’s blatantly unconstitutional at the federal level. Haven’t read Ct’s constitution.
“So what you are saying is that you don’t want states do decide what is permissible but instead expect big mother Supreme Court to step on them and tell Connecticut what they can and cannot do.”
My goodness! First you tell me I’m for nothing but state authority, then you tell me I’m for nothing but federal judicial supremacy. Get a grip.
“... D.C. or one of the states be able to decide on their own what guns should be available in their territory?”
They already do, hoss. For example, in the state of Washington it is illegal to possess a machinegun or any parts of one.
“You’re vocal in the extreme against the overreaching power of the courts” How so? Please show me where I’m “vocal in the extreme”.
“Selective tyranny at its finest.” LOL! You are in a mood.
“The states cannot decide what laws they will or will not enforce.”
They already do. Heck, even cities are ignoring federal law by declaring their cities sanctuary cities, and preventing local law enforcement from dealing with illegal aliens.
“I believe that power should rest with the Supreme Court. Anything else is anarchy.”
Real fine. Back to the question which you danced around and ignored. What to do when the federal judiciary oversteps their bounds and nothing is done by congress? Or do you believe that that hasn’t happened repeatedly?