Of course, I give you a brief, and badly needed, lesson on what the Constitution means and I am “smoking something”. Since you don’t understand the document stop embarassing yourself.
Well, the prospect of embarrassing myself has never been much of a deterrent. It's altogether possible I should consider a higher level of introspection, but be that as it may. After spending several hours reviewing writings, musings, and observations of something I had only a vague notion of brings me back to your post. That is, Article VI, more commonly known as the "Supremacy Clause". I'm sure you're familiar with it; I wasn't.
Your post #70 oddly enough came into better focus. In any case I feel I owe you an apology, so please accept mine.
Now, I had posted a piece HERE that I felt pretty good about because it tended to support my notion of powers vested in the states; in particular as they relate to the 10th Amendment. Would you be kind enough to take a look at it and share any observations you have?
Since posting that article I discovered the Supremacy Clause(save the commerce clause for another day) which led me to the conclusion that SOMEBODY had to be the more or less final arbiter of our Constitution, and that it was left in the more or less capable hands of the USSC. I suppose because there was just nowhere else to place that function. AND as near as I could determine Chief Justice John Marshall, a dreaded Federalist, probably did more via the Supremacy Clause to diminish the powers of the states than any man living or dead. So again, if you wouldn't mind, your thoughts on the Supremacy Clause.
BTW, I'm not an attorney so the king's English works best for me...