[Carry_Okie]

As I recall, there has been a recent chink in your thesis re the 14th in NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 144 (1992); Nos. 91-543, 91-558 and 91-563 Argued March 30, 1992, Decided June 19, 1992. In it, state citizenship was acknowledged as an extant doctrine. The decision was regarded as a landmark ruling, but has not manifested as such, for reasons that comport well with your argument. If you wish, I will go look at the text and cite it if I can.

[William Terrell]

If you wish, I will go look at the text and cite it if I can.

Thanks. I'll dig it up. I want to read the case. "Extant doctine", huh. But then, all I have are the words of a couple federal district court judges and a lot of innuendo in some older SC cases.

[William Terrell]

I read the case. Basically it's about a waste disposal issue with Congress trying to force the state in question to make certain legislation. There are references to 10th amendment rights of the states and protecting states sovereignty.

I get the distinct impression that "protecting states sovereignty" is more policy guided by the 10th amendment than law required by the 10th amendment, and, if something really important came up, like a national retail sales tax, the lip service to the 10th amendment would come to a screeching halt.

But then, I'm a cynic anyway.