Sorry can't argue states rights with you. Don't know enough about it. Nor strictly legal issues.
But I can reiterate my original point. Justice Scalia - using abortion as a lightening rod - argued for a more strict construction than his liberal (old sense) colleagues. He then stated that each time a new Justice is selected a mini-plebescite is conducted on what the Constitution ought to mean. Since selection is a political process people of many views are selected and that inevitably means that the meaning of the Constitution (practically speaking) changes with each Court and each generation. I thus find myself in agreement with Justices Holmes and Marshall, rather than with Scalia and other Conservatives of the present (In the past Conservatives held different views).
Nor do I see any way around it. Human ideas change with the times and with experience. If you want to retain the Constitution you have to allow it to change too. One could argue that amendment should be the only way to do that but, as a practical matter, our present system works pretty well.
The Amendment Process was articulated in the Constitution for a reason, and that was to protect We the People from an ever-expanding Federal Leviathan sticking its nose into every aspect of citizens' lives. Instead, we have a Judiciary Branch that TOTALLY ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and allow exactly that which the Constitution was designed to protect us. To say "the present system works pretty well" belies a satisfaction with the liberal belief that an expansionist Federal presence is an unmitigated good.
I disagree...MUD
Words of wisdom to ponder. . . or puzzle: "If you want to retain the Constitution, you have to allow it to change ."
I thought the constitution had been established so as not to be changeable except by amendment, so that it might endure and be retained and be difficult to change whenever the masses or the elite might flatuate and give birth to a new law or moral precept and wish to enforce it on all. The purpose was to establish a foundational and enduring law, difficult to change in order to prevent tyrrany. What you are saying is we have a document easy to change with every change in political correctness, and what is correct is determined not by the legislatures, either state of federal, nor local councils, let alone families or individuals, but five men or women on a bench and a gavel for enforcement.
Out with the Constitution, all hail the men in black. . . . and we, willing slaves.
just call me manes Cincinnati , since his spirit is surely dead.