Actually, I haven't said that.
Who said they could not regulate drugs? Buying into your own “mindreading” about me being a supposed libertarian so much now that you are basing your arguments (twice) upon such a delusion?
If you are going to fling a mind-reading accusation, at least learn what it means. As I said earlier, a question CANNOT be mind-reading.
And I brought up the 1st Amendment to illustrate the FACT that our right to free speech means nothing if State law is under no requirement to recognize that right.
Of course, that's covered by the 14th Amendment.
Two centuries ago people thought that State laws outlawing interracial marriage was compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of mankind. That thinking carried on for a long time until quite recently actually when it was found to be Unconstitutional - do you think their finding was in error, and do you think it should be a matter for States rights?
Of course I disagree with such laws.
Are you avoiding answering my question about what should happen when Roe v. Wade is overturned?
A question can be an attempt at “mindreading” quite easily. The question mark at the end doesn't change it. If I read your posts and then say “are you a Communists?”, I am attempting to read your philosophy from your comments and conclude that you are a Communist. Moreover you seem to have jumped right over my answer to that question in the negative, and based your arguments on the assumption that I am in fact a libertarian - to the extent that you further attempted to mindread me and assumed I was against the Federal regulation of drugs.
Covered by the 14th, of course, but in existence long before that under the concept of the natural rights of man. The 14th didn't CREATE the obligation for a non-tyrannous State government to observe our natural rights, it RECOGNIZED the obligation.
If you disagree with such laws, then clearly basing what is and is not consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man has little to do with what laws were in place in the past - and the argument must stand or fall upon its own merits.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would be up to the States.
Women crossing state lines to get an abortion performed would then have an effect upon interstate commerce! ;)