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.
Sorry. You are losing me in your 'style'.. -- Again, in that last sentence you made a meaningless remark.
It did not include broad federal powers, but very limited ones.
Yes, powers were limited for ALL levels of government, and those not enumerated were reserved to the people.
The nullification crisis under Jackson was resolved with the same attitude you have, the same attitude the government takes today:
I have an "attitude" about a nullification crisis under Jackson? Bizarre line.
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.
Here again your sentence is meaningless. What more can I say?
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?
Sigh, - there are debatable bits in that last paragraph, I quess, -- but trying to decipher your overall point is beyond my pay grade.. Sorry..
"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.
Obviously, -- I have major problems with your explanations.
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.
Beats me what your last few comments mean.
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.
Same comment, -- I'm at a loss to comment..
"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.
Some areas? -- The rights to what "things" ??
<
"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.
"Should have been"? Great argument.
"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.
I give up. You agree that CA has the power to prohibit 'assault weapons' and say that my best recourse to that violation is to move. -- BS.
See you around kiddo. -- Please, drop the bit about being libertarian..