"You are rejecting the fact that our Constitution demands [in Article VI] that sworn officials at every level support & defend our Constitution, notwithstanding any State laws to the contrary.. - State laws that would infringe on unenumerated rights as well as enumerated."
By asking the federal government to stay out of issues not under its jurisdiction I am supporting the Constitution.
If a state violates an unenumerated right, the elected representatives or judges should fix the problem. If they do not, the citizens of that state should make them fix it. If the citizens do not, the only way the federal government should be involved is to specify the unenumerated right as protected through a Constitutional amendment. That is exactly what happened with slavery.
The only jurisdiction federal courts have over the protection of unenumerated rights is that they are protected equally with due process.
If a right is not enumerated we do not need a federal court to "find" it. That is exactly what has happened on abortion and, more recently, sodomy. The courts also seem to have found a right not to be offended by someone else's public display of religion.
Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state. to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
If a state violates an unenumerated right, the elected representatives or judges should fix the problem. If they do not, the citizens of that state should make them fix it. If the citizens do not, the only way the federal government should be involved is to specify the unenumerated right as protected through a Constitutional amendment.
Amendments are not needed. State officials are clearly bound by their Article VI oath to protect ALL of our Constitutional rights, -- enumerated or not.
The only jurisdiction federal courts have over the protection of unenumerated rights is that they are protected equally with due process.
You are simply making that up. No such clause or wording exists in the Constitution.
From findlaw:
" -- There is an established principle that Congress may authorize the federal courts to compel state officials to comply with federal law, statutory as well as constitutional.
The Supremacy Clause makes federal law paramount over the contrary positions of state officials; the power of federal courts to enforce federal law thus presupposes some authority to order state officials to comply.
No doubt, there is tension between the exercise of Congress' power to impose duties on state officials and the developing doctrine under which the Court holds that Congress may not ''commandeer'' state legislative or administrative processes in the enforcement of federal programs.
However, the existence of the supremacy clause and the federal oath of office, as well as a body of precedent indicates that coexistence of the two lines of principles will be maintained. -- "