> I mean isn't that the will of the people in that state? That really depends on when those laws were passed, and whether attitudes have changed since then, do

> I mean isn't that the will of the people in that state? That really depends on when those laws were passed, and whether attitudes have changed since then, doesn't it? Most of these laws weren't passed last year, and the issue has been legislatively moot for 50 years, so you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that those laws represent the current will of the people in every state. > you are wanting to subvert their democratic process, no? Yes. I believe there are and should be restrictions on what the majority of a state can pass. I do want to subvert the democratic process in some specific instances. For example, if the majority of a state I didn't live in wanted to legalize slavery, I would say that they do not get that choice and that they may not. It's not like this is groundbreaking. There are all kinds of federal laws that preempt state laws on various topics. Pretty sure CA just had the will of its voters thrown out just yesterday relating to their gun laws, so maybe it's not so sacrosanct.