[Engraved-on-His-hands]

What are you talking about? Those are crimes which ARE defined by the states.

So, if a state determines that it is OK to rob a convenience store, rape the clerk, and murder the customers, you're alright with that?

Why is actually abiding by the Constitution now considered compromising? I thought we WANTED a government that followed the Constitution.

There are a multitude of things that are Constitutional but not moral. There are actions that can be both Constitutional and moral. I do not want a government that is immoral but cloaks its immorality in claims of Constitutionality.

[CA Conservative]

So, if a state determines that it is OK to rob a convenience store, rape the clerk, and murder the customers, you're alright with that?

You are becoming completely unhinged with that argument. You are engaging in a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum, and your 'argument' doesn't even deserve the respect of a response.

I do not want a government that is immoral but cloaks its immorality in claims of Constitutionality.

Nor do I - but even more so, I do not want a government that ignores the Constitution in order to accomplish the goals of whatever group happens to be in power. In that direction lies tyranny.