Neville > Because if I’m going to have a state that can coerce me into giving it money and being subjected to its will, then I want it to be as limited as possible. States are free to “compete” by giving us even more rights that what the Constitution guarantees, but I see no advantage to the consumer in them being able to give less.
Constitution gives certain rights to the Feds. The rest is between States and people (or towns). States can not give you _more_ rights. That is, if Feds can regulate interstate commerce, they have it whatever the States say. What happened from 14th Amendment and on, the rights of the states are minimal – both Feds and People got more. On a positive side, we live in a reasonably free country and enjoying a lot of rights. On the negative side, we lost the ability of individual states to implement different systems of government, whether in culture or in economics. I am calling your attention that a large portion of current political wars could be resolved by doing it differently in different states.
> That’s a cute way of justifying only using the parts of the Constitution that serve your shittah, but it’s a nonsensical distinction. You now have to also ignore the Constitution’s ability to be amended so that you can justify ignoring all amendments, but to do so would ignore part of what you call the “ikar.”
I am not calling for a revolution. I am suggesting using existing political process to favor restoration of state powers where possible, The fact that such system existed – and had certain flaws that led to civil war – makes it easier to analyze. If you consider original American idea a success, then you’d pay attention to the lessons and maybe go read federalist papers. If you follow modernishe view that the country was founded on aveiros only, then you’d advocate for a federal government that will solve all the problems. I don’t think this is your shitah.