Replies

Constraints of the U.S. Constitution apply to all states. In regards to the First Amendment, Murdock v. Pennsylvania , 319 U.S. 105 [1943] "The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Part of the case law behind the case was the attempts by states to tax religious organizations and the subsequent violations of the First Amendment by the States. Supportive cases: Gitlow v. New York, 1925, 268 U.S. 652, 666 , 45 S.Ct. 625, 630; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707 , 51 S.Ct. 625, 628; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 905, 128 A.L.R. 1352.

The 14th Amendment did no such thing. The federal judiciary claimed it did when it usurped power from the states and the people. Most people are so brainwashed they cannot see it.

Regarding case law, precedent is a dangerous tool in the hands of a tyrannical judiciary. The Constitution is not that hard to read. Let them refer to it and original intent rather than the opinion of another judge(s) who is likely to be corrupt.

Madison put it this way: "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

Jefferson put it this way: "On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

BTW, did you know the First and Great Commandment of the legal system is: "Thou shalt fill the halls to the rafters with case law"; and the second: "Thou shalt build more halls". We need to move all this case law from the halls to the landfills.

This issue also came up in the 2000 fiasco. The U.S. Constitution holds a supreme legal position over a state constitution and any state legislation must conform the the U.S. Constitution.

Not the same. However, I agree the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court had the authority to rule against the corrupt Florida Supreme Court in this particular case.

The supremacy clause also may come into play.

No.

If a state constitution or law conflicts with federal law or the Constitution, the Federal must be upheld.

Provided the federal law is made pursuant to the Constitution. Most federal laws are usurpations, conflicting with the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment did no such thing. The federal judiciary claimed it did when it usurped power from the states and the people.
[snip]
Regarding case law, precedent is a dangerous tool in the hands of a tyrannical judiciary.
[snip] Let them refer to it and original intent rather than the opinion of another judge(s) who is likely to be corrupt.

So your objections are that for over 170 years the judiciary has been corrupt (the cases went back to the 1830s for precedent) and that case law and precedent, the basis of our legal system and a heritage stretching back to Roman law, is dangerous and should be removed - 'move the case law to the landfills.

Re: 2000 decision: Not the same.

Same principle was used - a state can not usurp the Constitution.

"The supremacy clause also may come into play."
No.

And denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Provided the federal law is made pursuant to the Constitution.

And here we are talking about expressed clauses and amendments of that Constitution. A state can not decide to ignore parts that it doesn't like, nor can individuals.