Yep, an aging Marshall gave us an erroneous opinion which tried to compromise the split in the Union over slavery & 'states rights':
"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated."
The US Constitution also placed limitations on the States constitutions and laws. -- Article VI is the primary one.
"Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language."
They did, in Article VI. -- Marshall ignores its clear words on the supremacy of our Law of the Land.
"In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments.
Encroachments from local gov't were covered, -- by Article VI.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."
Marshall totally ignores that Article VI contains the application to States, not the first nine Amendments.
He also ignores the 1Oth, which specifies that some powers are prohibited to States, but reserved to the people. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed --- is one such prohibition.
What say you paulsen? Can you even attempt to address the issue?
Founding Father and Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling in a landmark case, "ignores its clear words on the supremacy of our Law of the Land".
Why do I bother with you? This is actually embarrassing. Have you no shame?