“I believe in the Rule of Law. You use a similar rationale that the defenders of sanctuary cities use. Or George Wallace on segregation and states rights.”
No I don’t. Fedgov has delegated power over both of the cases you mentioned. It can be found in Art I, Sec 8 and the 14th Amendment respectively. There is no Tenth Amendment violation.
In the case of pot, however, Congress is not delegated power to regulate intrastate commerce - unless you believe in a living breathing Constitution. Therefore, it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
So if Congress passes an anti-Second Amendment law, whose side would you take - the gun-grabbers or those who defend the Second Amendment? Simple question.
Until these laws are declared unconstitutional or invalid, they still must be enforced. You can stomp your foot and get red in the face that it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, but that is not the current reality. Sessions is forcing Congress to deal with the reality. The states can't change the laws or ignore them without dealing with federal laws that are still in force.
So if Congress passes an anti-Second Amendment law, whose side would you take - the gun-grabbers or those who defend the Second Amendment? Simple question.
As a member of the NRA, I support the 2nd Amendment. If Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, any law, then I would have it challenged and eventually go to SCOTUS for resolution. If SCOTUS concurs with Congress, then I would proceed with supporting another amendment to the Constitution.
What would you do? Would you take up arms against the government and advocate its overthrow?