I wrote in Reply 80: What this means is that the Constitution and federal government are [is] supreme in the areas delegated by the states to the Constitution, and state judges and courts are bound to follow the tenets of the Constitution but retain sovereignty in all areas not delegated to the federal government.
In your Reply 81 you state (by lining out "and federal government" and then claiming that the states didn't retain all rights not delegated to the federal government) that you don't understand the basic concept of federalism.
You're twisting what I did and lying about what I claimed. My strikeouts changed your line to read:
--- What this means is that the Constitution [is] supreme, and state judges and courts are bound to follow the tenets of the Constitution but retain sovereignty in all areas not delegated to the federal government.
State governments [ie, the people] have always retained all powers not delegated to the federal goverment.
Read the Constitution and you will know that I am correct:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
[Tenth Amendment, United States Constitution]
The 10th proves my point, not yours.
And who delegated those powers to the federal government?
The people ofthe USA, acting through their state governments.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
[Article VII, United States Constitution]
So, we have state delegations that met in order to resolve problems found in the Articles of Confederation, but rather deciding on their own and without prompting from we the people to create a whole new form of government under a new constitution (a fact that you didn't know); nine states' ratification enacting the Constitution; and an amendment stating explicitly that all powers not delegated to the federal government are to be retained by the states or the people.
Now I know at this juncture you will claim that the states merely represent the people and that the powers retained by each are one and the same.
You got it kid.
But once again, you are wrong. The right to retain arms is an individual right.
ALL rights are individual. We the People delegate powers to all levels of government.
The right to coin money is a state right that was delegated to the federal government. The right to regulate local commerce, establish requirements for voter eligibility, and amend the Constitution are rights of the states.
Nope. The power to coin money is a state power, delegated by the people, that was then in turn delegated to the federal government . The power to regulate local commerce, establish requirements for voter eligibility, and amend the Constitution are powers of the states, delegated to them by the people.
Also, the fact that the creators of the Constitution, who were members of state delegations, outlined which legal cases were subject to the Constitution and the federal courts with all others remaining in the state and local courts, is just one more point in the case proving that the federal government is restricted to only those powers delegated to it by the states [ie, the people] through the Constitution.
Also, you claimed at one point that the Preamble trumps Article VII in stating whether it was the people or the states that created the Constitution.
We the people, through our state delegations, created our Constitution. -- Obviously.
Article VII is a legally-binding passage that requires nine states to ratify; states amend the Constitution; and presidential elections are held on a state/federal level, not a national level (if you're not sure of the difference, please ask). How can you propose (with a straight face) that these facts are subordinated by a phrase in a non-binding introductory section?
How can you maintain a straight face and continue your nitpicking 'arguments'?
Get a life.
And we can only hope you are not a lawyer.
No, kid, Article VII trumps your opinion.
And your assertion that the right to coin money, regulate local commerce, etc., are individual rights that were delegated to the states is absurd. How can each individual citizen regulate commerce, establish voter-eligibillity requirements, etc, without anarchy being the only possible outcome? It can't - think about it. Those are rights that must be possessed by a state. Whether said state is democratic, monarchical, etc., is beside the point. Nowhere in the Constitution or any state constitution does it say that individuals retain or may reclaim those rights. The Tenth Amendment is referring to individual rights (RKBA, free speech, etc.) that are ultimately retained by the people, regardless of whether a state remains in the Union or secedes, and state rights that will remain with the state if an act of secession happens. Nowhere did Jefferson, Locke, or anyone claim that all citizens have the right to coin their own money or perform those other functions that by their very nature must be centralized to one degree or another.