That's okay - I'll walk you through it.
Revived? - Its never been dead. - Again, a state can argue such 'abuses' literally forever before the USSC...
Not on the Ninth or Tenth, they can't. It's dead as a matter of Constitutional law, even if folks still have some attachment to it.
...and in the meantime ignore enforcing them on their citizens. - Civil disobedience works. IE - The troops at Little Rock could not have put the whole town in jail for refusing to allow their kids to attend integrated schools.
That's a fairly easy thing to say, especially fifty years removed. Might I suggest that the folks on the ground at the time had a better sense of what their practical options were?
Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?
You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?
As for your post #146, I'm sorry - it's my turn not to follow you. I just don't see how you derive from that exchange the idea that I somehow favor the states being able to contravene the BoR. You are refuting an argument I don't make...
Not on the Ninth or Tenth, they can't. It's dead as a matter of Constitutional law, even if folks still have some attachment to it.
Bull. - Quote this 'law'.
--------------------------
...and in the meantime ignore enforcing them on their citizens. - Civil disobedience works. IE - The troops at Little Rock could not have put the whole town in jail for refusing to allow their kids to attend integrated schools.
That's a fairly easy thing to say, especially fifty years removed. Might I suggest that the folks on the ground at the time had a better sense of what their practical options were?
Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.
-----------------------
Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?
You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?
No.
Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.