You're carrying the martyred south act a bit too far, don't you think?
The federal government's authority, under the Constitution, is binding on individuals, and not on States.
Ridiculous. In that Constitution, which you keep claiming to have read, is a clause stating that the Constitution and the laws written under in are supreme over state laws and state constitutions.
[You, popping off] Ridiculous. In that Constitution, which you keep claiming to have read, is a clause stating that the Constitution and the laws written under in are supreme over state laws and state constitutions.
No, I'm referring to the previously-discussed paragraph in The Federalist No. 20, cited in the Antonin Scalia opinion on the successful Ravalli County challenge to the Brady Act (Printz vs. United States, 1997):
"I make no apology for having dwelt so long on the contemplation of these federal precedents. Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred. The important truth, which it unequivocally pronounces in the present case, is that a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity . . . ." [Emphasis supplied.]
Remember now?
ONLY when the law is PURSUANT to a delegated power of the federal govenment within it's sphere of authority.