"The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation."
Not true if we had fully informed jurors, allowed to establish both the facts and the application of the law, in the cases before them.
Juries judging the Constitutionality of law in the case at hand would provide the mechanism for action 'by the people'.. -- [And impartial juries are guaranteed by the 6th Amendment]
Which is precisely why jury nullification is not allowed in most of our 'justice system'.
What on earth are you talking about – some theoretical jury composed of the entire 'American people?'
No, I'm answering the Thomas question as posted. The Constitution recognizes a mechanism for 'the people' to speak, -- through trials by jury. - Fully informed impartial juries that can nullify unconstitutional applications of law.
As even Mr. Chief Justice Marshall recognized, when the people act, they act in their individual States – not as a united or "undifferentiated" national mass.
Why does anyone want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property?
You seem to be pursuing a 'straw man' argument. I never suggested that I "want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property."
Suit yourself.. If you want to deny you support the 'states rights' position, it's fine with me.
Wrong. Mr. Justice Thomas referred to “undifferentiated people of the Nation.” Unless you are proposing some kind of ‘jury’ composed of approximately 300 million people, your post is both nonsensical and completely irrelevant.
Suit yourself.. If you want to deny you support the 'states rights' position, it's fine with me.
And if you want to assume, without any basis in fact, that my States rights position indicates that I "want States to have sovereign power over individuals, - over their rights to life liberty or property,” it’s fine by me. It simply indicates that you are having some trouble grasping reality...
;>)