Replies

Until the Second is modified, it mean what it says and no "simple majority" can over-ride it. As "supreme Law of the Land", States cannot pick and choose which portions of it they can ignore.

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. 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." -- Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pet. 243 1833

Read a book.

So if the Constitution does not apply to the States, then how come the DEA can regulate drugs within a State that has legalised them?

Read a book my ass. You are justifying your lack of logic and support of even more encroachment of our Rights. We may as well not even have them using your definition!

You are nothing but a goddamn Tory. Should we re-instate the Rule of Lords so that you could switch up to Duke Roscoe?

Pathetic. I almost feel sorry for you that you are such a coward.

Yep, read some books, roscoe, on some of the causes of the civil war. Marshalls 'states rights' decision in Barron v Baltimore is mentioned in many.
We can thank the sane men who ratifyed the 14th, for making that Marshall opinion moot.