You aren't explaining how i'm wrong, you just keep asserting that it's "bogus to the max."
Whatever. I know from past experience that you like to get on the merry go round and go round and round in circles till we all feel like puking.
You are arguing that constitutional law must yield to state law, and that is just silly nonsense.
You obviously have a reading comprehension and learning disability, since I have explained at great length the "how's" and "why's" your ideas are so "bogus to the max", FRiend.
So my suggestion is, go back and read it again, and again, until something begins to sink in.
DiogenesLamp: "You are arguing that constitutional law must yield to state law, and that is just silly nonsense."
No, that's just your learning disability talking, not the facts.
So how many times do I have to repeat before you begin to grasp even a smidgen of it?
The core of my argument is the phrase, "Founders' Original Intent".
As I have pointed out to you now many times, Founders' Original Intent is the only logically consistent, conservative way to look at the US Constitution.
In all such issues we must first ask: what did our Founders say they meant by their words in their Constitution?
Having first determined what they meant, we can then constitutionally apply such understandings to our modern situations.
Founders' Original Intent tells us, for example, when a new law is appropriate or when a Constitutional Amendment is necessary.
So, as it applies to the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, your claim that our Founders intended to make it constitutionally impossible for states to abolish slavery is not supported by any Founders' writings, and therefore, by definition, must be classified as bogus to the max.
So tell us why such a simple concept is so difficult for you to grasp?
When did you first notice your acute learning disability?