Well, it seems to me that it would be the national government in D.C. deciding what laws North Dakota would be follow. It wouldn't be up to a citizen in the commonwealth of Virgina to determine national policy for North Dakota.
Now, that being said... Rabscuttle, since you don't think it's right for a national policy that allows those outside North Dakota to tell North Dakota what to do regarding guns, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, trial by jury, or parental rights, then shouldn't you support repealing the ENTIRE bill of rights?
Remember, prior to their ratification in 1791, the original 1789 language of the constitution was silent on those matters and left it up to local and state governments to decide policy on those matters as they saw fight. It wasn't until the constitution was amended that we had a sweeping, national policy on right to bear arms or freedom of the press that all states were bound to obey.
Since you argue the feds should have no authority to guarantee protection of innocent human life throughout our nation, then logically they should have no right to protect the rights of gun owners or freedom of speech or force any other human rights as policy in all 50 states.
Shouldn't we therefore repeal the 2nd amendment and stop the feds from "interfering" with state governments like Massachusetts and Illinois desires to ban all firearms within their state boundaries?
Wouldn't that be a victory for "federalism" and "states rights", whereas keeping the bill of rights and having the feds "impose their will" and force all 50 states to maintain basic liberties for their citizens be an example of "big government"?
Not necessarily.
It all depends on whether the federal Bill of Rights, i.e., the first Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, apply to solely the Federal government or to the Federal government and the States (and their constituent counties, parishes, boroughs, independent cities, towns, townships, hamlets, etc.).
Remember, prior to their ratification in 1791, the original 1789 language of the constitution was silent on those matters and left it up to local and state governments to decide policy on those matters as they saw fight. It wasn't until the constitution was amended that we had a sweeping, national policy on right to bear arms or freedom of the press that all states were bound to obey.
The various Amendments were extended to the States with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, after the Civil War, not in 1791, with the original ratification of the first Ten Amendments.