"The Constitution , I believe, does not give the Federal Gov. any of the powers that it has taken over the course of 200 + years . The Federal Gov. was given specific powers with any and all the rest of any powers to be were retained by the States and Citizens."
You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branches mostly disagree with that position for the past 200+ years, and increasingly so. And my guess is that there are plenty of inconsistencies in your position. Should the 2nd Amendment be a "states' rights" issue? If states wanted to ban the private possession of firearms, would you be fine with that, so long as it remained legal in *your* state? What about slavery? -or women's right to vote? -or polygamy?
Uniformity is necessary in many rights to prevent chaos, and prevent state legislatures and governors from getting up to mischief (see the debacles in the 2020 election, with some state legislatures and/or governors trying to present "alternative slates of electors" to the Congress).
The "states' rights" cause is an anachronism carried over from our Colonial past where say, Rhode Island could be a haven for religious nonconformists while Maryland had a Catholic majority. Pennsylvania could abolish slavery, and Virginia could be a haven for plantation owners working enslaved Africans to death. In 21st century America, the differences between states are trivial; cross the border between NY & NJ, WA & OR, or AZ & NM, and you won't even notice. So laws that vary between them just cause chaos. In Utah today, the age of consent is 16. Cross any of Utah's borders into a neighboring state, and it's 18. Think *that* hasn't been a cause of problems for quite a few people who believed they were doing something between consenting parties?!
"The Constitution , I believe, does not give the Federal Gov. any of the powers that it has taken over the course of 200 + years . The Federal Gov. was given specific powers with any and all the rest of any powers to be were retained by the States and Citizens."
You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive branches mostly disagree with that position for the past 200+ years, and increasingly so. And my guess is that there are plenty of inconsistencies in your position. Should the 2nd Amendment be a "states' rights" issue? If states wanted to ban the private possession of firearms, would you be fine with that, so long as it remained legal in *your* state? What about slavery? -or women's right to vote? -or polygamy?
Uniformity is necessary in many rights to prevent chaos, and prevent state legislatures and governors from getting up to mischief (see the debacles in the 2020 election, with some state legislatures and/or governors trying to present "alternative slates of electors" to the Congress).
The "states' rights" cause is an anachronism carried over from our Colonial past where say, Rhode Island could be a haven for religious nonconformists while Maryland had a Catholic majority. Pennsylvania could abolish slavery, and Virginia could be a haven for plantation owners working enslaved Africans to death. In 21st century America, the differences between states are trivial; cross the border between NY & NJ, WA & OR, or AZ & NM, and you won't even notice. So laws that vary between them just cause chaos. In Utah today, the age of consent is 16. Cross any of Utah's borders into a neighboring state, and it's 18. Think *that* hasn't been a cause of problems for quite a few people who believed they were doing something between consenting parties?!