Replies

To argue that a legal decision is in error, and to argue with an appeal to the consequences of that decision, is (to me) an argument that the law should be changed.

Okay.

Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.

So, they can regulate alcohol, but not drugs?

Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.

And what should happen then? Please be specific, should abortion be abolished nationwide or should the states get to decide?

The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.

I brought up state laws to illustrate the FACT that ALL states had morality laws two centuries ago and NOBODY questioned them. Libertarians seem to think that the Founding Fathers would have been aghast by morality laws and that is simply false.

“Okay.”? So you agree that to argue against a legal decision is tantamount to arguing that the law should be changed? Wow. Progress!

Who said they could not regulate drugs? Buying into your own “mindreading” about me being a supposed libertarian so much now that you are basing your arguments (twice) upon such a delusion?

And I brought up the 1st Amendment to illustrate the FACT that our right to free speech means nothing if State law is under no requirement to recognize that right.

So far from being off topic, it was exactly ON topic.

Two centuries ago people thought that State laws outlawing interracial marriage was compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of mankind. That thinking carried on for a long time until quite recently actually when it was found to be Unconstitutional - do you think their finding was in error, and do you think it should be a matter for States rights?