If you want the Federal gov't to get involved in state issues, then work to amend the constitution to include that 'whatever' as a basic right specifically guaranteed by the constitution. Such constitutional amendment questions are exactly the one thing the executive has absolutely no direct say in whatsoever. No voting power, no veto power. That power lies entirely in the hands of the legislatures on the Federal and State levels.
The one thing you absolutely do not want to do if you're about a meaningful constitutional system that protects rights and supports liberty is try to influence the courts to disregard the constitution as written and either twist it to include your desired issue without basis (example- 5 justices inventing a constitutional protection out of thin air in Roe v Wade) or for that matter voting in direct opposition to constitutional directive (example- 4 justices voting to ignore the 2nd amendment in DC v Heller). In both cases if the constitution was truly valued here anymore, an enraged citizenry and their congressional reps would have risen up together, whether the outcome was one any particular individual would have supported as an amendment or not, in order to immediately impeach the offending justices.
Essentially such justices are testing the waters to see whether they can get away with editing/writing a new constitution themselves, and skirting the constitutionally stated process for such editing. If that is never allowed without immediate impeachment, then we have an enforced constitution and change occurs by the book. Since we've failed to do that, nobody bothers to work through the cumbersome amendment process anymore, they simply vote in a manner attempting to stack the court regardless of whether the candidate is actually worth a shit or not. Furthermore, the parties have gotten very good at maximizing this effect to their advantage by providing bucketloads of rhetoric on polarizing issues at the proper intervals surrounding the election cycle- despite no real interest whatsoever in changing the status quo. If that keeps working for them well, they have no motivation whatsoever to make any such changes and kill the goose laying those golden electoral eggs.
Also, since we've failed to stand together to defend the constitution, we now actually have presidents who can say things like "its just a piece of paper" when taken to task on unconstitutionality of policy and law. And get away with it. Every American who has supported questionable rulings and minority opinions out of the SC because it came down on the side of the issue they favored, because it was easier than actually working to amend the thing as they would prefer, can only slap their forehead when it goes the other way and they catch themselves whining about constitutionality. "That's right, what was I thinking, of course its just a piece of paper, I've supported the mangling/ignoring of the thing myself when the ruling went my way."
If we want any right and expectation of Constitutional integrity out of our elected officials, our courts, our neighbors- then each and every one of us must stand together invariably each and every time it gets subjected to such abuse, and offer no escape from sanction to the abusers.
So for the CFL, state rights are state rights unless and until we amend the document to say specifically otherwise. Should we get a candidate seeking our support that isn't on board with that, and prefers a much more cavalier attitude towards constitutional matters, then that candidate is dangerous to Liberty and simply isn't our boy (or girl) regardless of whether we see eye to eye on any particular issue. That candidate wants to amass previously nonexistent Federal powers and wield them, rather than dissolve and diffuse such dangerous things.
