Not at all complicated. Does the Constitution grant FedGov the authority to:
1. Promote baby murder? No, it’s a STATE matter and should revert there. At least at the State level, it could at last be treated as the murder it is.
2. Promote marriage? NO. That should be a RELIGIOUS matter, between the couple and their church and their God. Could the STATES ban “marriage” between same sex couples, children, adults and children, humans and goats? Yes.
3. Ban grown folks (Americans) from ingesting/inhaling things of which the Government disapproves? Not only NO, but HELL NO.
Not complex at all, is it? The CONSERVATIVE position to all the above is, NO, government (especially FedGov) HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY, period.
Defense spending... well, since defense of our borders is Constitutionally MANDATED, what do you think? Tax receipts? Get rid of the income tax, put FedGov on a diet and then talk to me. Right now 90 percent of what FedGov does, INCLUDING your precious war on some drugs, is flat out UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Shrink government to its Constitutional limits, then we can see what else we want to get rid of.
Great - pre Wade v Roe, WA and NY had legal abortions. Pretty sure CA and IL would do it now, too, at a minimum. No problem there, right?
2. Promote marriage? NO. That should be a RELIGIOUS matter, between the couple and their church and their God. Could the STATES ban “marriage” between same sex couples, children, adults and children, humans and goats? Yes.
Cool, so opposition to gay marriage laws by conservatives is misguided. Got it.
3. Ban grown folks (Americans) from ingesting/inhaling things of which the Government disapproves? Not only NO, but HELL NO.
Great! Meth labs and pot farms all around, please! Probably will be needed to relax all those folks with their new married homosexual couples moving in next to them...
Not complex at all, is it? The CONSERVATIVE position to all the above is, NO, government (especially FedGov) HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY, period.
Except that above you EXPLICITLY states that the States have the right to regulate those behaviors. Which is it? Bad for FedGov only? Or bad for all Government?
Defense spending... well, since defense of our borders is Constitutionally MANDATED, what do you think?
So that's the exception...
Tax receipts? Get rid of the income tax, put FedGov on a diet and then talk to me.
Wait... The income tax is constitutional, too! So some parts of the Constitution are to be rejected (income taxation) and others accepted (defense). You like to pick and choose from the Constitution a lot?
The way to shrink Government is actually quite simple, if people would get out of their simplistic mindset (that is pervasive with folks like rabscuttle): you vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate with a legitimate chance of winning each time. Regardless of your own personal litmus test. Any other vote will not achieve what you seek - restricted Government.
Ain’t it funny (yet sad) how so many conservatives believe that government is the solution instead of the problem?