[wattsmag2]

Because it denies the supremacy of federal law as expressed in the Supremacy Clause.

Your interpretaion of that clause is definitey counter to several other clauses in that same Constitution.

Clauses I.2.3, I.9.1, IV.1, IV.3.2

And of course Article VII The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Note it says between the states. One would think that 9 states would also have the right to abbrogate that Constitution between them.

[WhiskeyPapa]

And of course Article VII The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Note it says between the states. One would think that 9 states would also have the right to abbrogate that Constitution between them.

You don't seem very familiar with the history of these events. The state legislatures did not ratify the Constitution. It was ratified in special conventions called for that purpose, because the intent, as Madison said, was to have the power flow form all the people.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Because it denies the supremacy of federal law as expressed in the Supremacy Clause.

Your interpretaion of that clause is definitey counter to several other clauses in that same Constitution.

The words of the Supremacy Clause are clear enough.

The rebels didn't even --pretend-- to abide by legality. Had they given a fig about legalities they would have gone before the courts.

Don't go there.

Walt