Read the supremacy clause, Art VI.. All States are bound by our "Law of the Land" is pretty forceful language.
---I have, but that clause wasn't extended without the consent of the States until after the Civil War, and thereafter it has been imposed.
That clause was consented/agreed to & ratified by every State as they joined the union.. - Your 'extended' remark is meaningless.
___________________________________
[Marshall] pushed no one. The role of the USSC is part of our separations of power doctrine. The three branches are supposedly roughly equal in powers.
---I don't think it was intended to be.
You don't 'believe' in separation of powers? It's a fact..
I think the miracle of Marbury is that it managed to hold up. After all, Marshall didn't actually do a darned thing to the federal government with Marbury. ---I think the court has let society assume that it was supposed to have been a third branch, but I have not seen substantial discussion about just what that role was to be from the founders. In fact, given their experience with law lords under the UK, it seems unlikely they would have delegated such a court with such a substantial power.
The first two Articles deal with the Legislative & Executive powers, then Art III declares that the Judicial power is vested in the USSC.. Pretty substantial evidence to most everyone, imo.
_______________________________
Sorry, that's not the way it worked. The people of the states gave up some of their power to benefit from union under our constitution. They can't change that decision [nullify acts] without amendment.
---I think that would have been the case pre-Civil War, and there are plenty that agreed with me then. Now, obviously, all seem certain of the supremacy of the federal government,
The supremacy of our constitution is agreed, not that of the feds. They too are bound to honor it.
and argument by force certainly has the power to claim it is correct. Luckily, having the biggest gun doesn't make you right, or the Germans would have been right during WWI.
Who said limiting fed power is wrong? Not me..
---Sorry to imply otherwise. I just know that the supremacy clause is what allows this monster to grow.
You "know" wrongly.. Misuse of power by political parties allowed this abuse of power at all levels of government.
The civil war did not change the power structure that much, imo..
I see the major change coming at the turn of the century, when both parties started to support socialistic programs..Party politics have ruled both fed & state since then, and socialism has won.
---Do a little more looking into the federal Republicans just after Lincoln got elected. They gathered at the trough and started this feeding, and mercantilists have been chowing down ever since.
You prove my point.
The 'states rights' movement is wrongly blaming constitutionalism for our political socialism, imo.
They should be blaming republocratic 'two party' politics.
---I have no issues with Constitutionalism. I just trust smaller governments more than larger ones. I think the more the federal government gathers power, the less the people have to do with it. And I honestly believe the more people have to do with government, the less government does. We have no argument about republocrats.
I just think that the supremacy clause is a joke, one that is only occasionally cited as a rationale when the SupCt can't extend some other already bloated part of the federal government any other way.
Blaming the constitution for political failure is a weird argument, imo. -- Do you want to amend it to give States even more power over individual rights? -- IE, CA claims the power to prohibit assault weapons, and they are supported by the USSC.. -- Do you appove? - The 'states rights' movement does.
"That clause was consented/agreed to & ratified by every State as they joined the union.. - Your 'extended' remark is meaningless."
No, the force of the supremacy clause, the reason Leviathan has sprung up, is that where it formerly extended to limited areas and states jealously guarded their powers, today it extends to all areas, including what were formerly state prerogatives. States may have signed on to a federal Constitution, but then it was federal. It did not include broad federal powers, but very limited ones.
The nullification crisis under Jackson was resolved with the same attitude you have, the same attitude the government takes today: Under the Confederation, then, no state could legally annul a decision of the Congress or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. The Constitution remedied this.
This is simply false. The States were then States, separate but aligned. It may be that I'm fighting a lost cause, again, but separate States may agree on a compact without agreeing to surrender their sovereignty in perpetuity. And the Constitution certainly never said 'States can't ever back out.' It would be as if England wanted to withdraw from the EU after the EU decided to force it to build a land bridge between it and the Continent.
The simplest argument as to the 'extension' of the supremacy clause is this: old States and new have separate Bills of Rights that guarantee the same rights as the Constitution, even after the supremacy clause was long standing. Why, if the supremacy clause extended to them already?
"You don't 'believe' in separation of powers? It's a fact.."
A simple misinterpretation that shows you don't know what I'm trying to explain. In England, judges don't have the power to interpret the SupCt does. There is very little difference between the Constitutional exposition of the SupCt and the English courts; it is not difficult to see that Marbury is such a huge precedent because it's the only thing giving the SupCt this power. Ever law book cites it because it simply IS the only thing the SupCt hangs it hat on.
I am merely stating that we've had the separation of powers drummed into us re: the SupCt since we were kids. It's not too unlikely that part of the separation was unintentional, that it took a rather weaselly federalist decision to establish it, weaseliness worthy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, in that neither actually did anything, but both exposited high principle and established that for their cause.
"The supremacy of our constitution is agreed, not that of the feds. They too are bound to honor it."
Semantics. The supremacy of the States in some areas was agreed. That's been abrogated. The rights of the people to some things was agreed. Those have been abrogated.
"You "know" wrongly.. Misuse of power by political parties allowed this abuse of power at all levels of government."
Again, you are putting it to the parties, when we don't really disagree. If the supremacy clause didn't allow political parties to intervene in the states, the Constitution would rather limit their interference. Political parties have used it to go where they ought not to. If there were no evil men, it would never have been used this way, but that it is able to be used this way doesn't mean it's the fault of the parties but of the drafters. The Constitution simply should have been more limiting to begin with.
"Blaming the constitution for political failure is a weird argument, imo. -- Do you want to amend it to give States even more power over individual rights? -- IE, CA claims the power to prohibit assault weapons, and they are supported by the USSC.. -- Do you appove? - The 'states rights' movement does."
I do. I think people have the power to civilly disobey and I think they have the power to move. Some states were near theocracies during the pre-Civil War period, and people moved to more freedom. I think any time government tries to impose freedom instead of people imposing it on government, the result is government using that power wrongly instead.
Witness the EEOC and OSHA. Great ideas, but the result is that government develops its own notions of 'freedom' and 'rights' that average people would never accept or demand.
If we are to say that rights come from God, and I do believe this, it is equally certain that God helps them that help themselves and if the people want to exercise those rights, they have to want them enough to take it from government and guarantee it. It has never been and never will be that things humanity has been given they appreciate.