Replies

I don't see why a state supreme court justice has to follow the lead of the federal supreme court in the first place. It's two different constitutions.

Because Article VI of the Constitution states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." In short, the U.S. Constitution supercedes local Constitutions and the laws made under them where the two conflict.

I fully understand your exegesis of current constitutional interpretation theory (you do it succinctly and well). However, nowhere does the Constitution state that interpretation of the Constitution is a function of the Federal Government.

Article VI says that federal, state, and local governments are "bound" by the Constitution. One is not "bound" by any text that one may at will define. (An example is Saddam Hussein's "The law? The law? The law is a few words with my signature beneath them.") Therefore the Constitution requires that the federal government may not by "interpretation" define what the Constitution "means".

Therefore Amendment IX and X apply.

Of course any Federal court would dismiss this argument as mere "novel legal theory". How could they do otherwise?