Replies

"The various States, each being a seperate republic, compromise a union, or confederacy if you will, of republics."

Exactly. - The key to the union being, -- the states agreement that the U.S. Constitution is to be the supreme 'law of the land', -- as it applies to our basic individual inalienable rights. [Art. VI]

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
-- This type of law violates any number of the constitutional safeguards of our BOR's.

As we see in CA, 'evil' guns are being regulated out of the hands of law abiding citizens, using this type of statist thinking.

Many here at FR think that states should have the power to 'regulate' behavior by majority vote, - by prohibitions on 'evil' objects or on repugnant acts.
Regulate - agree. Prohibition - disagree, partially.
The States should regulate some things as without those regulations many actual crimes would take place. For instance, a States "weights and measures" regulations. If there were not regulations in such instances then the purchasing of a gallon of gasoline or a pound of vegetables would be at the whim of each merchant. My gallon or pound might be less, constituting theft.
In the prohibition aspect "things" shouldn't be prohibited while "criminal acts" should be prohibited. Murder is a "repugnant act" as well as a criminal act, the same as with rape. I want things such as murder and rape prohibited by law.
However, many "repugnant acts", as they are viewed by some, aren't criminal acts yet are made so within the law. There is simply too much objectivity in stating something is a "repugnant act". One person may not see it as such and another person does. That is why our State legislators are supposed to be objective and look out for the rights of the people as a whole and not cater to "special interests".
Just MO and very limited, but something to think about.