Becuase the Constitution, which they agreed to abide by, gives jurisdiction on matters of law and equity arrising under the Constitution to the Supreme Court. And that extended to matters between the citizens of several states or matters where the United States is a party. To the Supreme Court. Not the state courts, not to you, not to the mob, but to the Supreme Court.
When the People amend the Constitution, does the Court have the authority to interpose?
No, because the grounds for amending the Constitution are clearly contained in the document itself.
Through the amendment process, their untrammeled power to ratify amendments, the People hold absolute sway over the Courts, as I said, and could abolish the entire court system with the stroke of a pen if they wished. That is the true relationship.
It would take more than 'a stroke of a pen'. It would take a two thirds vote in both houses of congress and the approval of three forths of the states. In short, it would take the approval of an overwhelming majority of the people. The southern states acted without the concerns of the people.
On the other hand, you haven't yet shown me authority conferred in the Constitution or anywhere else, that would make the U.S. Government the Sovereign over the People of the United States.
The people of the United States? What do you care about the people of the United States? Did you care about them when the people of Louisiana were seceding, taking forts and facilities with them, and cutting off access to the sea for people in the Mississippi and Ohio River valleys? Did you care about the people of the United States when the seven states were walking away from the obligations that they had incurred when they were part of the people of the United States? Hell, no. In your world the states are supreme, then the people. Or at least some of the people. Your sudden interest in the people of the United States is laughable.
It sure does. Operative word, "under". Not everything is "under" the Constitution. The People can convene at any time, with or without their legislatures or the national legislature's acting, to unmake the Constitution -- everyone recognizes this. If all the people in America were determined to abolish the Constitution, they could do it, even if their legislators didn't cooperate. The logical sequel being, that they have a power superordinating the Constitution, in order to operate on the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution could never be amended.
People, up here. Constitution, down there. Supreme Court, somewhere below that.
And that extended to matters between the citizens of several states or matters where the United States is a party. To the Supreme Court. Not the state courts, not to you, not to the mob, but to the Supreme Court.
Oh, so now the People are "the mob"? Smoking you out, am I?
Ah, yes, the Supreme Court -- with Salmon P. Chase and four other Lincoln-appointed justices sitting up there, Chase with the presentation gavel in his hand, lovingly inscribed, "With complete confidence that you will catch our backs, A. Lincoln."
Yeah, right.
Well, for one thing, as I explained above, the People themselves and their superordinating power over the Constitution, which is a reserved power, by the way -- you didn't think we weren't going to talk about reserved powers, did you? -- are absolutely ultra vires, no matter what commercial disputes over frozen chickens the Court might be called on to referee among citizens of various States.
You're correct in this, that as long as a State is in the Union, they are under the Constitution and can't not be under it and must abide by the Supremacy Clause. But you have no tool and no document with which to strip the People of a State of their reserved power, their right, to take their State out of the Union if they wish.
If they can't, then the People are not sovereign, and somebody else is. If the Supreme Court be invested with the powers you say it has, to unmake plebiscites and set the will of the People at defiance, then by operation of logic, the Supreme Court is the Sovereign of the United States, and "the laws of England are in my mouth," as the bard once wrote.
The People is the State and vice versa. There is no amalgamated, lumpenproletariat People of the Whole United States -- we always act in our States, because we are our States. That is how we have our political identity. We are not a nation-state revolving around a centralized governmental monopole.