---I have, but that clause wasn't extended without the consent of the States until after the Civil War, and thereafter it has been imposed.
That clause was consented/agreed to & ratified by every State as they joined the union.. - Your 'extended' remark is meaningless.
___________________________________
[Marshall] pushed no one. The role of the USSC is part of our separations of power doctrine. The three branches are supposedly roughly equal in powers.
---I don't think it was intended to be.
You don't 'believe' in separation of powers? It's a fact..
I think the miracle of Marbury is that it managed to hold up. After all, Marshall didn't actually do a darned thing to the federal government with Marbury. ---I think the court has let society assume that it was supposed to have been a third branch, but I have not seen substantial discussion about just what that role was to be from the founders. In fact, given their experience with law lords under the UK, it seems unlikely they would have delegated such a court with such a substantial power.
The first two Articles deal with the Legislative & Executive powers, then Art III declares that the Judicial power is vested in the USSC.. Pretty substantial evidence to most everyone, imo.
_______________________________
Sorry, that's not the way it worked. The people of the states gave up some of their power to benefit from union under our constitution. They can't change that decision [nullify acts] without amendment.
---I think that would have been the case pre-Civil War, and there are plenty that agreed with me then. Now, obviously, all seem certain of the supremacy of the federal government,
The supremacy of our constitution is agreed, not that of the feds. They too are bound to honor it.
and argument by force certainly has the power to claim it is correct. Luckily, having the biggest gun doesn't make you right, or the Germans would have been right during WWI.
Who said limiting fed power is wrong? Not me..
---Sorry to imply otherwise. I just know that the supremacy clause is what allows this monster to grow.
You "know" wrongly.. Misuse of power by political parties allowed this abuse of power at all levels of government.
The civil war did not change the power structure that much, imo..
I see the major change coming at the turn of the century, when both parties started to support socialistic programs..Party politics have ruled both fed & state since then, and socialism has won.
---Do a little more looking into the federal Republicans just after Lincoln got elected. They gathered at the trough and started this feeding, and mercantilists have been chowing down ever since.
You prove my point.
The 'states rights' movement is wrongly blaming constitutionalism for our political socialism, imo.
They should be blaming republocratic 'two party' politics.
---I have no issues with Constitutionalism. I just trust smaller governments more than larger ones. I think the more the federal government gathers power, the less the people have to do with it. And I honestly believe the more people have to do with government, the less government does. We have no argument about republocrats.
I just think that the supremacy clause is a joke, one that is only occasionally cited as a rationale when the SupCt can't extend some other already bloated part of the federal government any other way.
Blaming the constitution for political failure is a weird argument, imo. -- Do you want to amend it to give States even more power over individual rights? -- IE, CA claims the power to prohibit assault weapons, and they are supported by the USSC.. -- Do you appove? - The 'states rights' movement does.