Replies

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.

In a nutshell, yes.

A state can not decide to ignore parts that it doesn't like, nor can individuals.

Your statement is meaningless under todays standards. The federal government can, and does ignore the constitution on a continuous basis, either creating laws via legislative usurpation, or out of thin air via judicial usurpation. The fears of the anti-federalists and George Washinton have come true: all power is consolidated in Washington, and collusion between the three branches essentially has consolidated all power into a single branch. Legal eagles see no problem with this because they cannot see past the "law". But many civil wars have been fought over far less, and many nations have self-destructed over far less.

"So your objections are that for over 170 years the judiciary has been corrupt....and that case law and precedent, the basis of our legal system ....., is dangerous and should be removed - 'move the case law to the landfills."

In a nutshell, yes.

"A state can not decide to ignore parts that it doesn't like, nor can individuals. "

Your statement is meaningless under todays standards. The federal government can, and does ignore the constitution on a continuous basis,

I'll take it as point made that a state can not constitutionally issue legislation against the federal Constitution.

You have moved to a position that the state should break the Constitution since the Federal government has - another thread topic and something along the lines of it's ok to break the law because everyone is.