>I've never heard an argument used by Republicans that would
>compromise individual rights for state power, especially
>stating "tremendous restraint" is to be used in interpreting
>the Constitution against state power. In fact, the only
>arguments I have heard being used is that the Constitution
>grants states' rights at the expense of the federal
>government, which is indeed accurate.

we keep missing each other on this argument. my point is that in the past states rights ideology suggested a narrow reading of Constitutional provisions to keep the Feds out of states' business and allowed states a lot of leeway in interpreting Constitutional provisions on their own. using the fourth ammendment to promote Federal involvement in pro life causes is not that. in this case, it's an expansive reading that's attempting to set aside a state ruling.

>As far as civil rights are concerned, that argument was used
>more or less by Dixiecrats rather than Republicans. Those are
>two different groups.

not really. for example, all of the supreme court cases that turned back school desegregation in the 1970s pitted arguments about individual rights versus state rights against one another, and the new Nixon majority sided with states rights. if i want to be a dick, i can cite roe as another example. that was argued as a classic individual versus states rights case, with republicans on the side of states rights. whatever the abortion constitutional debate has morphed into (and i know you're about to cite the fourth again, but saave your breath) at the beginning Republicans were arguing for states rights and the Dems were arguing for individual rights.

You can make that argument with other things that
>have gone down during the GOP dominance of the federal
>government, but this isn't a accurate example. Besides, you'd
>have to also identify the different political ideologies
>within the Republican Party, which is actually more diverse
>than most would admit.
>
>Even then, I'd still consider the Republican Party the one
>more concerned with localized authority rather than the
>Democrats. At least the party is based on principle and are
>willing to run on a cohesive platform. Democrats don't, and
>really haven't since McGovern was on the ticket.

I agree with most of this. I disagree that Republicans are better on issues of federalism. They've violated it and grabbed as much power at they could since 1994. Right now neither party really cares, and whether that's a good or bad thing is a matter of debate. I also think that any time you start talking about a party being driven by a single principle you get into trouble, because American political parties are coalitions. But I can't disagree that Republicans of whatever stripe generally tend to have better developped principles at this point in time.