[Bigun]

If not the Supreme Court then who? Should the president have the power to decide if his actions are Constitutional? Jefferson Davis thought so, but that is hardly an endorsement given his excesses and anyway, do you want Obama to decide that his policies are legal or not? Should Congress have that power? The right to decide that everything they do is Constitutional? Do you want Pelosi and Reid to be able to do that? Or the states? In that case even though you claim states cannot expel another state against its will, though you cannot show where it is prohibited to begin with, the states could do it by just saying that it’s Constitutional. That’s what you think should happen, huh? Figures.

Before I address the above, let's explore the famous Marbury vs Madison case just a little more.

Did Mr. Marbury ever get the commission he was seeking from president Madison in this case?

If not, what happened to president Madison for ignoring that ruling? Was he censured in any manner?

Now as to your questions.

The system the framers intended would have any two of the three branches of government act as a check on the excesses of the other branch and the states acting as a check on the entire federal government excess.

No state is more sovereign than any other state so no state or group of states can tell ANY other state or group of states what it can or cannot do! That is the sole purview of "the people" of each state individually acting through their elected representatives within the state.

[Non-Sequitur]

The system the framers intended would have any two of the three branches of government act as a check on the excesses of the other branch and the states acting as a check on the entire federal government excess.

So you want the Obama White House and the Pelosi-Reid Congress to act as checks on each other?

No state is more sovereign than any other state so no state or group of states can tell ANY other state or group of states what it can or cannot do! That is the sole purview of "the people" of each state individually acting through their elected representatives within the state.

Pretty much what I figured you'd say, which is in keeping with your contratictions all along. You say the government shouldn't tell the states what to do, except why you think that it should. You say nothing in the Constitution is implied, except when you say those impled powers are there. You say the 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states, except when you decide it doesn't. And you say the states are sovereign, except when some states are more sovereign than others. You are nothing if not predictable.