Conservatives don't have a Monopoly on what's Constitutional

Constitutionalism and states' rights are a cause often echoed by conservatives in the United States. It seems to rarely ever be brought up by more liberal minded voters. This is likely due to the fact that, with the major exception among many conservatives as the principle pertains to America's armed forces, conservatives believe in smaller government that isn't intrusive in peoples personal lives and dealings (as epitomized by lower taxes).
It is true that strict constitutionalism would mean an extremely reduced federal government in most of its scopes. However, in theory there IS such a thing as constitutionally acceptable Single-payer health care, unemployment checks or certain regulations. It is not that it is government mandated or a government run program that makes it constitutionally invalid, it is the LEVEL of government. As long as a citizen's fundamental natural rights, as expressed  in the first ten amendments (or fourteenth), aren't violated, there is no dictate indicating if or how much involvement state governments can have in these. One major legal difference between "romneycare" and the "obamacare" is the that while the former might be just as reviled by Massachusetts conservatives as the latter, it IS within the purvues of the constitution.
Here is the best example I can think of. It is a popular initiative to establish a liberal social welfare program that would affect all Californians.

http://californiaonecare.org/ 

"This California OneCare Campaign is an historic grassroots movement to educate millions of Californians and build overwhelming public support for single payer universal health care in California.We support single payer legislation, Senate Bill 810, authored by Senator Mark Leno. In its previous versions (SB 840 authored by Senator Sheila Kuehl), this bill passed both houses of the California legislature twice, only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated that “Health care is not a right.”We believe that healthcare is not only a right, but it is also a moral obligation in any enlightened society. Indeed, every other developed nation on earth provides comprehensive health care for its entire population, and does so for less than half of what we spend on our inadequate system in the U.S. Almost all of them use some form of single payer, non-profit health care financing system.“Single Payer” means that all health care is financed by a single state agency that also collects health insurance premiums through a progressive tax system. Under SB 810, private health insurance would be eliminated. Health care would continue to be provided by private doctors and hospitals, just like today. Patients could choose any health care provider. There would be no deductibles, co-pays, or exclusions for preexisting conditions. Coverage would be comprehensive, including medical, dental, prescriptions, mental health, rehabilitation, diagnostics, and more. Everyone would be covered for life, regardless of employment status, age, or health. Physicians would be responsible for the management of individual care; they would not need authorizations or pre-approvals from government officials for treatments or diagnostics."

 Disregarding the grammatical error of having 'an' before a word starting with a consonant, this is constitutional 'socialism'. It is a government mandated program that forces people to buy health care insurance from the state government. And it is fully constitutional. You may vehemently disagree and believe that health care is not a right, as governor Schwarzenegger had stated. That doesn't mean you can't still have it. Assuming the axiom that health care is not a right, the people of California still have the right as voters and citizens of that state to collectively decide that they would like to implement a single payer system for utilitarian and financial reasons, and/or because it better reflects their values as a society. They may feel that in the big picture and in the long run, it is more financially sound to cover everyone with an across-the-board-insurance plan that to partially subsidize people to buy private insurance or not to at all. Remember, if worst came to worst, your could always vote with your feet.
That is the wonderful thing about proper constitutional federalism.

First post, intruduction

I am a 23 year old Canadian and I love the United States. I love the idea of it, I love what it stands for, and I love its constitution. I most of all love its (original) ingenious idea of federalism and states as sovereign countries within a larger union. You can't apply a one-size-fits-all set of policies to a country of three hundred million like you can in a comparatively tiny one like the Scandinavian countries or even Canada and expect the same levels of success or efficiency. If people in one state want legalized cannabis and single payer healthcare, and those in another want a flat tax of 2% and unrestricted right to bear arms including assault rifles, well that's excellent and it is within their rights as citizens of their respective states to be able to create such. This is of course on top of the minority rights they possess as citizens of the union. This means that they don't have to worry about their state trampling their Deity-given rights.
Unfortunately, through the aftermath of a civil war, a series of poorly thought out constitutional amendments, and the SCOTUS becoming bat-sh!t insane and turning the meaning of the commerce clause on its head, America has lost its way. The welfare state, the drug war (which is the federal creation and enforcement of criminal law, the exclusive purvue of the state governments)and FEDERAL LEVEL healthcare, are all unconstitutional.  As I will be discussing these sorts of things, this can be considered a political blog, though not exclusively such. I will also discuss whatever I'm interested in, but obviously the above topics are going to be the primary focus.