[Ryan Spock]

Now, the beauty of federalism is ... you can move to another state if this issue is that important to you!

While I disagree with this law as a general principle because it's heavy-handed nanny-statism, I agree with your comments because I do like the idea of states' rights.

The states should be able to regulate the moral and legal tone that represents the will of the people in those states -- including regulation of abortion, legalization of marijuana, etc.

If we're going to believe in a principle, we need to be consistent.

[robertpaulsen]

"The states should be able to regulate the moral and legal tone that represents the will of the people in those states -- including regulation of abortion, legalization of marijuana, etc."

I feel exactly the same way. I'd also support the repeal of the 14th and 17th amendments, two amendments which have done more to destroy federalism than the Commerce Clause ever will.

That said, bear in mind that the Supremacy Clause does state that federal law trumps state law. If Congress chooses to constitutionally act on an issue, the states are bound by the U.S. Constitution to comply.

[robertpaulsen]

"While I disagree with this law as a general principle because it's heavy-handed nanny-statism"

I am under the impression that this has the support of the people. Am I wrong?

If the legislature is merely enacting the will of the people ... I guess I don't understand your comment. What you're calling "nanny-statism" I simply call self-rule.