NS: Two questions then. Who decides if the opinion of the Supreme Court contradicts the Constitution? And what do the Alien and Sedition Acts have to do with the Supreme Court?
Allow me to answer the second question first. The Alien and Sedition Acts were "palpably unconstitutional" laws passed by the Federalist Party-controlled federal government in the 1790’s. The United States Supreme Court never ’reviewed’ the laws in question - possibly because all of the justices had been appointed by Federalist presidents, and their party benefited from the legislation. Nevertheless, several of the justices personally prosecuted and sentenced Americans for violating the Sedition Act, which made it a federal crime to simply criticize the president. (What is it the First Amendment says? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." ;>) That is what “the Alien and Sedition Acts have to do with the Supreme Court:” they provide an irrefutable example of unconstitutional action by the federal government - while the Supreme Court ‘watchdogs’ either ‘slept at the switch,’ or actively participated in the unconstitutional action.
Which brings us to your first question – allow me to refer you to the words of Thomas Jefferson, written in response to the federal government’s aforementioned Alien & Sedition Acts:
“...(T)he several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
And let us not forget James Madison, writing for similar reasons:
“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
”It does not follow, however, because the states, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought to be interposed either in a hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior occasions...
”But it is objected, that the [federal] judicial authority is to he regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner...
”...(T)he proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly...supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the [federal] judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution [shall we refer, yet again, to the Alien & Sedition Acts?]; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another--by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
”However true, therefore, it may be, that the [federal] judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the [federal] government; not in relation to the rights of the [States as] parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, 1799-1800
In other words, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison suggested that the States, as parties to the compact, had the right “in the last resort” to determine whether the terms of the Constitution had been violated – in essence, to determine the meaning of the Constitution. ”But it is objected [by many here], that the [federal] judicial authority is to he regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort!" John Taylor discussed the issue in 1823:
“The word supreme is used twice in the constitution, once in reference to the superiority of the highest federal court over the inferior federal courts, and again in declaring ‘that the constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.’ Did it mean to create two supremacies, one in the court, and another in the constitution? Are they colateral, or is one superior to the other? Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court? Are ‘the judges in every state’ to obey the articles of the union, or the construction of these articles by the supreme federal court?
”...(A) federal system required that the articles of union should be invested with supremacy, over the instruments created to obey and execute them [i.e., the federal government]. Hence they are declared to be so in reference to all these instruments, without excepting the federal court. And hence the right of altering these articles is retained by [the States as] parties.”
What say you, my friend – “Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?”
;>)
As for your second part, where in the Constitution does it give the states the right to determine what is constitutional? It gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction on matters arising under the Constitution, not the states.