No. I said the State and federal government has their own spheres of operation
"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry
-----
Opinions are not facts.
Well, since the opinions are from the men WHO WROTE the Constitution, I'd think they would have a much better idea of its functions and purpose than you would.
The FACT is that, in your 'opinion' their words are meaningless...but your 'opinion' doesn't make it a 'fact'.
You deride the information given, yet still offer nothing of your own.
-----
You're simply in denial that the supremacy clause exists, as it is written;
LOL!
I've acknowledged the clause repeatedly and affirmed the federal government is 'supreme' ONLY when it operates within its enumerated duties.
Anytime it operates outside those SPECIFIC duties, it becomes an unconstitutional act.
-----
The fact that Congress is named in the 1st's establishment clause does not mean that other levels of federal, state or local governments can infringe upon the peoples rights enumerated [or unenumerated] in the rest of the amendments.
The fact that Congress is named in the First amendment means all the Amendments have to do with Congress and not the States.
The States operate within a CIVIL jurisdiction and the Constitution is a purely STATUTORY instrument.
That's WHY no 'right to life' appears in the federal Constitution, but that right DOES appear in the State Constitutions.
Do you know why the legislature is listed before the President or the judiciary?
Do you know why the federal government has 'powers', but the States have 'rights'?
-----
I'm somehow 'junior' to you? Get a grip.
No comment from you concerning the fact that the laws of the States do, indeed, 'withstand' the supremacy clause.
STILL no sources.
Still no instances of a homeowner in California prosecuted for shooting a burglar DESPITE no RKBA in that's State's Constitution.
You contention that the federal government can force California to acknowledge the RKBA is hollow simply because if it COULD, it would have done so by now.
On my question as to WHY the States must have their own Constitutions since you believe the federal Constitution is 'supreme' your reply because they 'have to'.
Still no evidence of any kind to support your assertions.
Just "Blah, blah, blah... because I say so."
The really ridiculous part is that you don't even know enough about Constitutional structure to tell a declaratory clause from a restrictive clause or realize the modern definition of a Republic is vastly different than the intention of the Founders.
Have you even read Montesquieu? He was the second-most quoted source of the Founders, you know-
Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.
THE SPIRIT OF LAWS Book VI By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu
-----
So... Sorry I referred to you as 'junior'.
Your lack of evidence and rational debate proves you're obviously undeserving of such a lofty position.
Good day.
You're simply in denial that the supremacy clause exists, as it is written;
LOL! I've acknowledged the clause repeatedly and affirmed the federal government is 'supreme' ONLY when it operates within its enumerated duties.
Yet you deny that State constitutions & laws must also operate under our Law of the Land.
The fact that Congress is named in the 1st's establishment clause does not mean that other levels of federal, state or local governments can infringe upon the peoples rights enumerated [or unenumerated] in the rest of the amendments.
The fact that Congress is named in the First amendment means all the Amendments have to do with Congress and not the States.
All of the Constitution, - [amendments are inseparable parts of the Constitution] -- as per Article VI, applies as our supreme "Law of the Land".
Your theory that the BOR's do not apply is also belied by the 10th, wherein powers are "prohibited by it [the US Constitution] to the states".
IE, in a free State, the rights of the people shall not be infringed.
The States operate within a CIVIL jurisdiction and the Constitution is a purely STATUTORY instrument. That's WHY no 'right to life' appears in the federal Constitution, but that right DOES appear in the State Constitutions.
Our right to life, liberty, or property is mention twice in the Constitution, in the 5th & 14th amendments. -- Yet another weird denial of fact.
Do you know why the legislature is listed before the President or the judiciary?
Doesn't one have to be 'listed' first? -- And one last?
Do you know why the federal government has 'powers', but the States have 'rights'?
You claim states have "rights"? -- The 10th makes it clear that States have powers, some of which the Constitution prohibits. --- Like the power to deprive us of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
No comment from you concerning the fact that the laws of the States do, indeed, 'withstand' the supremacy clause.
You're imagining you've established such a 'fact'.
STILL no sources. Still no instances of a homeowner in California prosecuted for shooting a burglar DESPITE no RKBA in that's State's Constitution.
Rant on that CA's gun prohibitions are constitutionally OK.
You contention that the federal government can force California to acknowledge the RKBA is hollow simply because if it COULD, it would have done so by now.
Get real, -- the feds want to outlaw guns just as bad as CA does. Are you blind to the ongoing national anti-gun movement?
On my question as to WHY the States must have their own Constitutions since you believe the federal Constitution is 'supreme' your reply because they 'have to'.
Hype. -- Our discussion is posted; -- anyone can read my more detailed answer.
Still no evidence of any kind to support your assertions. Just "Blah, blah, blah... because I say so." The really ridiculous part is that you don't even know enough about Constitutional structure to tell a declaratory clause from a restrictive clause or realize the modern definition of a Republic is vastly different than the intention of the Founders.
So you [blah blah] claim, without further specifying your points, if any..
Have you even read Montesquieu? He was the second-most quoted source of the Founders, you know-
Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.
THE SPIRIT OF LAWS Book VI By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu -----
You have this really bizarre habit of quoting rather esoteric passages, imagining that they buttress your poorly made observations. -- Dream on.
So... Sorry I referred to you as 'junior'. Your lack of evidence and rational debate proves you're obviously undeserving of such a lofty position. Good day.
Whatever.