"-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I read that as, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights protected from federal infringement by this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"... you'll hear several times a distinct wink and a nod to the effect that he hopes all the States will incorporate the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions and laws."
Be that as it may, 150 years went by before the states started incorporating the BOR, and only because they were forced by the U.S. Supreme Court to do so! But if the states themselves adopted some or all of the BOR, at least the state supreme court would interpret them, not five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court telling us that nude dancing is protected "speech" and all states must comply. That's how the 14th is destroying federalism.
"I'm simply saying that you seem to be in favor of strong, even extreme federalism when it is convenient for a political position you support (gun control laws), but in favor of the Supremacy Clause and federal intervention when that allegedly supports a different political position you hold (drug laws ...)"
Mere coincidence.
My "principle" is based on constitutionality -- in these two areas, I happen to agree with the courts. The second amendment is not incorporated and only applies to the federal government. I think we agree, so I will not belabor the point.
Regarding drugs, I think we agree that Congress has the power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs. Maybe they shouldn't be in that business (an arguable point), but they certainly have that power if they choose to do so (which they did so choose).
As to the intrastate regulation, that seems to be the sticking point. The bottom line is this -- since intrastate drugs would affect Congress' interstate regulation, they can control it. If they cannot, then we can just forget about the Commerce Clause.
For example, Congress regulates the airlines -- cruising altitudes, air corridors, landing patterns, radio frequencies, etc. What if the intrastate carriers took the same attitude as the pro-drug group and said that Congress may not regulate them -- that they can fly wherever and whenever they want since they only fly within their state?
Oh, that makes sense robertpaulsen, so Congress should be allowed to regulate them also. It not only makes sense, it's constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It makes as much sense for intrastate air traffic regulation as it does for intrastate drug regulation.
Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, the U.S. Department of Justice position on the issue."
Yes, I read it. Their position and $6.95 will get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. If Hillary gets elected, I'm sure her Department of Justice will have something to say about the second amendment. Will you be citing that?
"the original drafter of the 14th Amendment, John A. Bingham (R., Ohio), had absolutely no doubt as to its intended application:"
I believe Mr. Bingham was the ONLY one who knew this. Certainly the U.S. Supreme Court didn't know its intended application -- in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania, April 5, 1869, the Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of the case by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states.
Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment was intended to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights against the states, you would think that nine months after it was ratified somebody would have known about this intent, either the plaintiff's lawyer, or one of the nine eminent constitutional lawyers on the 1869 Supreme Court.
Now, not only didn't the U.S. Supreme Court know its intended application, Congress didn't know its intended application. A mere eight years after the 14th amendment was ratified, Congress debated, and almost passed, the "Blaine Amendment" -- a resolution to recommend to the states a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the first amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government.
Now why would they do this if the first amendment was already incorporated under the 14th amendment?
And if I may boil this entire debate down to a simple point, it would be that I do not agree with the courts, or their interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar -- I know that many men of good conscience have mulled over these issues through the years. Some have reached conclusions similar to yours, and some have reached conclusions similar to mine.
You actually seem to have a much better grasp of history and Constitutional law than many of the people debating with you give you credit for. I simply disagree with your conclusions, and prefer a much more libertarian application of law.
My view is that the Founders were saying something like this: "Let's design a box. Inside this box, government will exist. Everything outside this box cannot and shall not be touched by government. Let's name some specific instances of things government shall not touch, just to be clear about it. But remember these are only examples -- ideally government shall not touch anything outside this box."
Technically, the "government" they would have been referring to was the federal government, because that's what the Constitution was specifically addressing. But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box, and contain the same explicitly named limitations as the federal box, as a baseline minimum.
And extending this silly little analogy ad nauseam, I believe that today, we find that the government that was placed inside that box looks a lot like The Blob (the monster from all those old movies). It has escaped from the box, is invading everywhere, and is entangled in places it never should have been. Its enablers and accomplices have been many, and they are not necessarily conspiratorially involved -- but for whatever reason, they allowed it to escape, and it continues to grow.
I understand that this is a very "philosophical" analogy, that has a limited relationship to the reality of legal issues, but I think it at least provides an overview of how I view the role of government as intended vs. the role of government as practiced.