Whats 'circular' about saying our constitution is the law of the land?
You do not like the way the States treated certain people, therefore you want to expand the power of the Federal Government.
Bull. -- I want constitutional rights honored for ALL people. Don't you?
But that was not the intended function of the Federal Government.
I never said it was. That's your silly straw man.
If the State Police power is administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the remedy is supposed to be in the State Courts.
The USSC is the highest court, as per the constitution. [Art. III]
What you seek to do--or others like you--is to change the Federal Government from being a servant of the people, intended to fulfill certain functions with which we could all agree, into being an enforcer of uniform ideas throughout the States. That is a complete distortion, and should be resisted for all the reasons that led to the original separation from England.
Again, that is sheer bull. I firmly support States powers to protect their citizens from federal violations of the constitution. These 'check and balance' powers are not being used because of a failed so-called 'two party' political system, not because of any faults in the constitution.
I suspect you support this failed rinocrat system, thus your effort to tar me as some sort of a federalist.
Nothing. But that is not all that you are saying. You need to read your own post after the line that I quoted, for an illustration. The fact that the Constitution is supreme, does not apply the language of the Constitution that limits one entity to another entity that it does not limit. Your suggestion that this somehow justifies the Fourteenth Amendment, changing the responsibility of the players, is completely circular--particularly when you even go so far as seeking to look the other way on the ratification question, in order to accomplish this reallocation of Constitutional responsibility.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site