Says you. You're obviously in favor of the supremacy of the state over the individual, and I am not.
I think my considerations regarding natural rights and freedom are in closer alignment with our nation's founding ideals than yours are. The documentary evidence of our country's history supports my view.
If you want to support giving government bureaucrats the power to force you to engage in behaviors that it deems proper and necessary, be my guest. I don't, and won't support that.
You FOOL!
Did you read ANYTHING I posted about the proper amendment process for the Constitutions!?
If a Constitution is the Supreme law of the Land then it is the Law for EVERYONE in that land; what it allows is allowed, what it prohibits is prohibited, and what it mandates *IS* mandated. You are arguing that States cannot have even punitive powers for criminals! Because the Law is obviously to be enforced by SOMEBODY (usually government, but not required); and people charged with crimes are charged in a Court of Law (which *IS* part of Government),.
Many of the problems we face are PRECISELY because the Constitutions (and even inferior laws) are treated with contemptible “selective enforcement!” “shall not be infringed” obviously doesn’t mean BATFE, and such regulatory powers are allowed, it means the opposite. Likewise, things like “freedom of speech” are assaulted with “common sense” regulation (the example of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater) are put in place [weakening the supremacy of the Constitution; instead of amending it] instead of properly prosecuting him for the injuries he caused rather than the methods he used to accomplish it.