IOW, you can't articulate a sound reason why you want the federal government to overrule in some areas but insist states have authority in others, that just coincidentally coincide with your pet projects.Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.Do you have standing to challenge a SC ruling? Not on your own, you don't. You have to first challenge a specific law in state court, lose, appeal it multiple times through the appellate courts, then finally get to the SC. Then, only if they decide your case actually has merit, which they likely wouldn't, would you have standing to challenge their ruling and insist that your understanding of the Constitution is greater than theirs.Not at all. I have no problem asking the supreme Court why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means in DC v Heller, should I have standing. Our Tenth Amendment applies and States may feel free to challenge any Thing repugnant to State sovereignty and States' rights.IOW, they're wrong because you disagree with their ruling.All they did was ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means. The States merely need a good case to move forward so that the SC has to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.We've been over this. The SC disagrees with you and I'll side with them.Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.You mean like owning a weapon.Where is the power to deny or disparage Individual Liberty?Ok. Where is the right to an abortion 'expressed' in the Constitution?Our Constitution is express not implied.Flowery words that mean nothing. Your ideas are nowhere close to what the Founders said. That is to be expected from todays Dimwinger gimme...gimme....gimme crowd.The words themselves express everything we need to know for legal forms of absolutism.Completely opposite of what the Founders said.A top down solution for any given exigency is what we can infer. It is a General clause not a common clause nor a limited clause.From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people. Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”
Watch this..................
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual Liberty.
Here's a hint. The SC rarely overturns itself, especially at the special pleading of someone whose greatest understanding of the Constitution comes from reading some chapter titles in a book.
So you champion state's rights when it comes to restricting the 2nd Amendment, but want the federal government to overrule when it comes to setting their MW. Why are you inconsistent?