Alright, Zukiphile, explain to me why lines drawn concerning State power vs. Federal power has anything to do with gun control, abortion, environmental laws and welfare? That's what I mean.
A limited federal power with remaining power reserved to the states is the federalism embodied in the COTUS
The 2d Am. is a limitation on the power of the federal government set forth in the COTUS
The role of the Supreme Court should be to determine whether a matter represents a justiciable issue under the COTUS
, and then resolve the matter according to the COTUS
. Where, the Court moves to resolving social and criminal issues playiong out in individual states, but that are not addressed in the COTUS
at all, they move beyond their constitutional role.
Where an environmental law effectively takes some of my ownership or control of my property without compensation, that law represents an uncompensation taking, which the COTUS
doesn't permit the federal government to do.
Where property rights are generally matters of state law, even in bankruptcy courts, it is not obvious that the COTUS grants
the federal government the authority to redistribute property for the sake of an egalitarian ideology.
I see a common thread underlying these positions
. That doesn't mean that one can't have a more creative view of the issues, or bring extra-constitutional standards to constitutional law, or that the positions are categorically correct. However, that does explain what they have to do with one another.
It's fine if you adhere to the "Republican mindset," but the issues aren't all based in what Republican v. Democrat means, that's what I'm saying. That we shouldn't split the community that way, when (on this forum) we're obviously all for gun-owners rights.
I appreciate the efforts of pro-2d Am dems, and as always local influences matter very much. (I have an acqaintance who is a far left congressman who felt he had to change his abortion position when he grew national ambitions.) John Dingle has done great work. I live in a heavily unionised area in which the rank and file are very pro-2d Am.
However, to assert that the national parties over the last several decades have not been easily distinguishable on 2d Am issues involves a denial of the obvious. When people observe how these divisions generally sort out, they are often observing the obvious and general, to which there can always be exceptions.