Replies

First off, let's get the groundrules straight: I am addressing this comment from Willams: In violation of both the letter and spirit, the federal government imposes unconstitutional and costly mandates covering the gamut from education and land usage to how much water can be used to flush toilets. I wonder when a governor and his state legislature will summon the courage to declare some of these federal laws null and void, and refuse to enforce them.

IOW, Williams is expressing a desire for the states to declare null and void those federal laws it considers to be unconstitutional. As I noted, this raises some real problems for Constitutional government, in that the states are specifically not empowered to decide what is constitutional. Rather, they are explicitly bound to uphold the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.

The states, as well as the people, do not derive their powers from the Constitution. That is the whole point of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Constitution was written to enumerate the powers of the federal government, except in those instances where "state" or "states" is specifically mentioned.

The Constitution delegates certain to the United States, specifically denies certain powers to the states.

The Constitution defines proper channels. Article III is quite clear on the topic that the Supreme Court has authority to rule on the Constitutionality of laws. Once a law has passed muster with the USSC, the states are bound by Article VI to uphold (i.e., enforce) them. Prior to a USSC ruling, states or individuals may appeal any law with which they disagree.

Where exactly does it say that the Supreme Court shall have sole power in deciding what is or is not constitutional?

An amazing question, to be sure. One approach to answering this is by pointing to consistent practice: it's been done this way since we began operating under the Constitution.

Getting to Constitutional specifics, please see Article III, Section 2, which says in part: The judicial Power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

(The 11th Amendment modifies the underlined portion, in that The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.)

Who originally constituted said government? If memory serves, "we the people.

True. And the Constitution explicitly provides methods by which we the people may re-constitute government. However, if the people are going to live under the Constitution, then the first requirement is that they respect what it says.

Your (and Williams's, and my) real complaint is not the words of the Constitution, but that "we the people" don't seem to be very interested in doing what the Constitution says.

An amazing question, to be sure. One approach to answering this is by pointing to consistent practice: it's been done this way since we began operating under the Constitution.

This at least is absolutely incorrect. There was a court case in which the USSC gave itself that right.

An amazing question, to be sure. One approach to answering this is by pointing to consistent practice: it's been done this way since we began operating under the Constitution.

Here for your edification:

The governmental function of courts has been to order how laws apply to any party whose case is properly represented before the bar. It was, therefore, a significant enhancement of the traditional powers of courts when the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wrote the decision in Madison v. Marbury which ruled that the highest court in the land was the ultimate arbiter of all law including the Constitution itself, and could therefore, overrule its co-equal branches of government. This power was the ultimate precedent which permitted the Supreme Court to set social policy through constitutional interpretation, reaching its zenith during the "Warren era" which declared an end to segregation in Brown v. Board of Education as the first of many such seminal decisions.

USSC grants itself power above and beyond the Constitution

... the states are specifically not empowered to decide what is constitutional. Rather, they are explicitly bound to uphold the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land.

Doesn't the lack of empowermrnt to decide what is constitutional impair the ability to uphold the Constitution?

If they can't decide what is constitutional, doesn't that make them likely to do things that are not constitutional and require their citizens to wait for the courts to straighten it out? (Which does happen fairly often I guess.)