jakesdrool

Your website is misleading. I just read your op and was excited to check it out. I was under the impression I could pick the country/region and the candies as well. But you do all the picking? So I could get stuck with coconut-something while I hate coconut-anything?

I subscribed and I don't even know what's in the mail. I can't even see on your site how to find out? Am I internets stupid?

Great idea by the way!

Just a correction here:

"As enshrined in the constitution, the power of the federal government supersedes that of state governments."

That's not true. The Constitution specifically enumerates the power of the federal government and reserves all other rights to the states. In this case, there is nothing in the Constitution about federally owned and managed lands.

Now, this has been a great issue for over two centuries and continues today, those who would thwart and are in favor of a more powerful federal gov't vs those who seek to conserve (conservatives) the original intent of the Constitution.

This is a very important point.

This is exactly the 200 year plus debate I was referring to. On one side, people who would argue that the Constitution is a "living, breathing, document," or open to interpretation. These are the so called scholars, think tanks, etc you refer to. They see and read into it whatever is necessary to further their ends. Activists. They only cite the Constitution when it suits them.

On the other side, strict constructionists who do not leave it open to interpretation. What the Constitution said in 1787 is the same (aside from amendments) as what it said and meant in 1987 or 2017. You cannot read into it that which is not there.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it speak of federal parks. No way, no how. If New York said to Pennsylvania in 1787, 80% of your states lands will be federally owned, the Constitution never would have been ratified. No state would have agreed to that. How do we know this was never an issue? Because there are no discussions, no records of one. It was not an issue.

So to my original point, nowhere in the Constitution are federal parks enumerated as a federal power. All other rights and privileges are reserved for the states.