Wow you really don’t understand these matters at all, do you?
Your first paragraph makes not sense.
States are part of a Union not sovereign states. They never really were even under the Articles. So there is nothing which would compare to an “act of ware (sic)” with sovereign nations.
Where does the idea that the 10th amendment changes the fact that the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land come from? The only reason the amendment is even there (as far as its practical purpose has been so far) is as a rhetorical sop to the anti-Federalists.
Are you asking me why jurors are forced to come to court disarmed?
Only tangentially; the major point is that it is a hideous injustice. But I would love to hear you try to justify it.
Where does the idea that the 10th amendment changes the fact that the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land come from? The only reason the amendment is even there (as far as its practical purpose has been so far) is as a rhetorical sop to the anti-Federalists.
Hm, so the Constitution, at least in part, is mere rhetoric. Good to hear your position here.
States are part of a Union not sovereign states. They never really were even under the Articles. So there is nothing which would compare to an “act of ware (sic)” with sovereign nations.
According to numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the 50 individual states and the United States as a whole are each sovereign jurisdictions.
Example: In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress's authority, under Article One of the United States Constitution, could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity.
Your first paragraph makes not sense.
Let me put it this way: the court used a false premise to determine an outcome.
Wow you really don’t understand these matters at all, do you?
Sure I do: the federal government is powerful and corrupt, and that corruption drives it to further claim powers [which are not legitimate] which lends itself to more corruption.
I do notice how you are quite unable to give a good reason for what [inconsistencies/injustices] I'm pointing out; the reason is simple: to do so is impossible, defending the indefensible.