You boast of 40 years study..
I took an oath to protect and defend our constitution 48 years ago.
I knew then as I know now that States have no sovereign 'rights' over individuals, they have delegated powers, limited by our Constitutuion & BOR's..
Somehow you claim that this means I've:
-- "as usual, gotten the argument upside down. The states are "general" governments. The powers of the federal government are "few and defined"..
Weird comment.
The general government bit is not at issue. Your comments on the USSC vs states 'rights' are the argument, imo.
- You ~want~ states to have the power to ignore our Bill of Rights.. Why is that?
58 posted on
11/03/2003 8:15:44 PM PST by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but Arnie won, & our republic, as usual, will lose.)
Haven't you ever read the
Federalist by Madison, Hamilton and Jay? If you had, you would have recognized one of the most famous quotes from that source, which I used. That book has several chapters on the difference between "limited" and "general" governments. It's hard, if not impossible, for anyone to understand the principle of federalism, without first understanding that distinction.
I have no idea where you get the idea that the states can or should "ignore the Bill of Rights." I've never suggested any such thing. To the contrary, the main focus of my work in the Supreme Court and my writing about that Court is to get the Justices to obey the Constitution, including all of its amendments.
You should have the same opinion, if you understand and support the Constitution as written. Do you?
John / Billybob