“half-truths are often more insidious than total falsehoods.”

Samuel P. Huntington

First, the Constitutional argument for saying abortion would be prohibited is far stronger than the Constitutional argument saying abortion is a Constitutional right. If incorporation of the 4th Amendment via the 14th Amendment is a farce, are there sufficient words to describe the illegitimacy of Roe v. Wade? One farce does not pour into concrete a far greater farce. You should also note that many pro-lifers on this site are not pushing for a federal law or a Constitutional amendment to address abortion–we are instead focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade.

Second, you are correct in that the 4th Amendment applies to government, but the failure of a state government to outlaw murder would be a Constitutional violation by THE STATE, NOT THE MURDERER. You will also note that the US Constitution requires a republican form of government in all states, so yes, the Constitution can place affirmative as well as negative requirements on states. Your half truth is that murder is not unconstitutional, but such a fundamental failure by the state to outlaw murder almost certainly would be found unconstitutional. There is also a decent argument that could be made in response to an attempt by a state to revoke its common law of contracts and tort liability.

Third, while one can argue in good faith that there is no requirement that the federal government create a statute pertaining to murder, there is certainly no prohibition against such an action and numerous constitutional bases for doing so. Again, the distinction between may and must is critical to any legal analysis, and to purposely conflate the two is not the sign of someone arguing in good faith.

Fourth, people do care about the stimulus
and the abandonment of the Constitution. Ever hear of the Tea Party? The fact that people also argue it is bad does not undercut in any way any constitutional arguments. To the contrary, the goal of avoiding unconstitutional behavior is enhanced if you can stop it regardless of what is in the head of the legislators. If someone has a gun to my head, and I can convince them that my cat is an alien telepath who will reward them for putting the gun away, I don’t consider the outcome to be some sort of travesty even if it is not optimal.

Fifth, if someone (whether in good faith or not) suggests a Constitutional Amendment, is not the proper response to say why that is a bad idea on “policy grounds”. After all, a Constitutional Amendment cannot be unconstitutional, can it? For example, a ruling by the US Supreme Court that a validly enacted Constitutional Amendment to exclude flag burning from First Amendment Proection somehow violated the First Amendment is to abandon self-government and comprehensively enshrine a dictatorship of the Courts. So if the issue is phrased as a potential amendment, the only possible substantive response is to “explain why it is bad on policy grounds.” Procedurally speaking, amendments are legitimate even if stupid, which is why the argument in fact must be “why it is bad on policy grounds.”

The deep dark secret of a Constitutional Republic is that from a purely procedural standpoint, the Constitution could be amended to remove all of the Bill of Rights. While contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and contrary to the intentions of the Founders, the Constitution could be amended such that the Bill of Rights were rescinded.

Should someone ever try to do this, I suspect the response will be to say “why it is bad on policy grounds”. Self government is a messy business. Snide comments, woe is me whining, and misleading half truths don’t make it easier or better.