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.
Ryan, does this mean you support State prohibitions on guns? Paulsen claims CA's 'assault weapon ban' is perfectly Constitutional.
Paulsen:
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.
Bobby, a states so-called 'right' to ignore our Constitution should be 'destroyed'.
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.
Yep, the states are bound by the U.S. Constitution [Article VI] to comply with the Bill of Rights, and all other Amendments, regardless of whether "-- Congress chooses to constitutionally act on an issue --".
No, that would be a case where the state is imposing an unconstitutional restriction on something that is Constitutionally protected -- RKBA.
Individual rights are Constitutionally protected, and RKBA falls under that. Any law that the states pass must be Constitutional. I agree with federalist ideas in general, within the bounds of the Constitution protecting individual liberties first and foremost. I think the 10th Amendment has been ignored, in the sense that states should primarily be in charge of themselves without federal intrusion.
The idea of the feds regulating commerce was originally meant as a way to ensure a level playing field between different states, but the feds have long since used it to encroach terribly on areas of governance which should be determined by the states (e.g. drug laws).