Why are you getting pissy with me? None of it's my fault. I'm just telling it like it is. All I said was Brewer is correct--she is. I got some people quibbling with me and I'm setting 'em straight.
What is it with people thinking that a statement of fact equals advocacy of that fact? If I say I've got the runs from eating some bad chili, it may be true. Does it mean I welcome the fact? No. It just means it is a fact.
(My bowels are actually fine. That was just an analogy.)
Correct me if I'm wrong. The difference between you and I in this discussion is that you find "the law" to be legitimate, properly flowing from the consent of the governed. That sort of "respect" as opposed to "respect" for the Mafia or the Nazis or MS-13 on account of their superior firepower.
I think you and I are likely to agree on what Congress and the courts say, after all, they more or less provide direct assertions. The federal government, supported by SCOTUS in the Raich decision, has assumed the power to bring federal criminal charges for possession of pot. Similarly, Congress has modified the "no guns in a school zone act" so that it is the exercise of a judicially-endorsed constitutional power of the federal government.
What isn't clear is whether or not you and I are in agreement that these assertions of federal power, by Congress and the federal courts, deserve moral respect. I find them ultra vires.