Agreed...and the columnist disagreed with her.
And that means she has never actually read the Constitution or skipped right past Article VI.
No...it means that you're assuming the Bill of Rights doesn't exist. Article VI is limited to only the powers that the federal government actually is allowed, which is very limited and is granted at the will of The People through The States.
And as James Madison wrote: "But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact." This was written directly in the nullification correspondence with Daniel Webster and can't be ignored. And it is preposterous to suggest that the government outlined by the compact can have primacy of definition (i.e., self-definition) over those who executed the compact. That's like saying man has primacy over God, even though God is the Creator. The People are not Frankenstein with a self-defining, rampaging monster...the federal government must remain within its roles defined by the States as enumerated in the Constitution.
As do I.
No...it means that you're assuming the Bill of Rights doesn't exist. Article VI is limited to only the powers that the federal government actually is allowed, which is very limited and is granted at the will of The People through The States.
On the contrary, the Bill of Rights is part and parcel of the Constitution as a whole. And nowhere in that entire document can I find where the individual states are empowered with deciding what is Constitutional and what is not. That is reserved for the Supreme Court.
And it is preposterous to suggest that the government outlined by the compact can have primacy of definition (i.e., self-definition) over those who executed the compact.
Not at all. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury v. Madison, "Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." The states do not expound and interpret the law. The Courts do.