Tell me, is it theoretically possible to object to an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government, without at the same time loving everything it does and needing to grow up?

[This brings up an interesting hypocrisy in leftists' thinking, their collectivist worldview but intrinsicist, subjectivist assumptions about each person's (are well allowed to think in terms of the "person's"?) thinking (what I mean is that each person can only think according to one's race, class, etc.). Leftists love to whip out the word "reductivist" on the opponents of socialism, but they are the most prototypical reductivist thinkers imaginable. Am I rambling? OK, I'll get to my point.]

If one has a Constitution that establishes a political system, and presumably limits what the government can do with the economic system and with the civil society, then indeed it would be prudent to safeguard it from subverters, of both the ideological and tyrannical, demagogic type (yes, I am talking about Obama, lefties). This is the only way to have freedom and justice co-exist. However, the current statists deny such Constitutional restraints, and are spreading their power like a virus throughout the states. The government is thoroughly corrupt; and the firewalls between the branches all but completely compromised. We cannot even be sure that the Supreme Court will wield its implied power of judicial review to preserve liberty, instead of buttressing the clearly unconstitutional expansion of state power to comprehend the ultimate decision over each person's life, liberty, and property.

"Pursuance thereof" = 'Pursuant thereto" = "Pursuant to the US Constitution"

Thus, any law not made pursuant to the strictures of the US Constitution is not constitutional and is not supreme; it's void, like most of what Congress does.

If this were not the case, there would be no limit on federal power and no point to 99% of the Constitution. Do you really think that's the result the Drafters and ratifiers were after? Is that what YOU want?