From Elliot's. Again, we see the "shall be valid as part of the Constitution" language. Once ratified, it becomes part of the "Supreme Law of the Land".
End of story.
From Elliot's. Again, we see the "shall be valid as part of the Constitution" language. Once ratified, it becomes part of the "Supreme Law of the Land".
End of story.
Hey, I'm over here - once you get through beating that straw man let me know.
When have I or anyone else on this thread ever said that the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land? Never. The Bill of Rights were considered limits only on federal power.
jwalsh, maybe I'm just not wording something well here. I remember discussing incorporation with you in the past. Do you have anything to add that might help make this more clear to those that deny Barron v Baltimore?