[Non-Sequitur]

Your original question in Reply 540 was "...is the Federal government the sole rightful judge of the powers delegated to it?" And the answer to that is no. The Supreme Court is the sole judge of whether the governments actions are legal since the Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this matter. The individual states have no recourse except the Supreme Court and if they disagree with the court's decision then that is that. They all agreed to Article VI, Section II where is says:

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.

If the individual states choose not to be bound by the Constitution then they have two choices: follow the provisions in Article V and get the required number of states to agree to amend the Constitution and let them withdraw, or enter into rebellion. One path is legal and peaceful, the other is illegal and the state in question must accept responsibility for the consequences if the federal government chooses to contest their actions.

[D J White]

Your original question in Reply 540 was "...is the Federal government the sole rightful judge of the powers delegated to it?" And the answer to that is no. The Supreme Court is the sole judge of whether the governments actions are legal since the Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this matter.

The US Supreme Court is a part of the Federal government, so, I can only deduce that your answer to the question of whether the Federal government is the sole rightful judge of the powers delegated to it is 'yes.' Which leads back to my original question of Walt. According to unconditional Unionists, States have no recourse whatsoever, to opposing Federal usurpations which the States may find insufferable. This doctrine, I believe, would have been astounding to the Founding Fathers.

The individual states have no recourse except the Supreme Court and if they disagree with the court's decision then that is that. They all agreed to Article VI, Section II where is says: 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.

Well, with respect, it says, that the Constitution is supreme, not the Federal government, which is a creature of the document.

If the individual states choose not to be bound by the Constitution then they have two choices: follow the provisions in Article V and get the required number of states to agree to amend the Constitution and let them withdraw, or enter into rebellion.

No, there is another. They can retract their ratifications, and leave the Union to those who find the percieved usurpations tolerable, which is, I believe the point of the matter.

Respectfully,

D J White