Judicial Review

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm still trying to discover where Article V of the United States Constitution allows the Supreme Court to amend that precious document.

Can you guys help me?

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

From the LINK in the OP:

"In 1798, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed a series of resolutions asserting that the states have the power to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional. In response, ten states passed their own resolutions disapproving the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.[40] Six of these states took the position that the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the federal courts, not in the state legislatures. For example, Vermont's resolution stated: "It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union."[41]

"Thus, five years before Marbury v. Madison, a number of state legislatures stated their understanding that under the Constitution, the federal courts possess the power of judicial review."

Three of those states were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, who then turned around and adopted the very same arguments when Jefferson was President and imposed his embargo against Great Britain.

Massachusetts:

"It would be derogatory to the honour of the commonwealth to presume that it is unable to protect its subjects against all violations of their rights, by peaceable and legal remedies. While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

"Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the ninth day of January in the present year, for enforcing an act laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary thereto, is, in the opinion of the legislature, in many respects, unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and not legally binding on the citizens of this state."

Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations

"A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim."

The States Respond to ObamaCare

Connecticut:

"Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the Embargo."

Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations

"Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task—it is their right—it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." - Governor Jonathan Trumbull

Our state legislators? right and duty | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Rhode Island:

"That the people of this State, as one of the parties to the Federal compact, have a right to express their sense of any violation of its provisions and that it is the duty of this General Assembly as the organ of their sentiments and the depository of their authority, to interpose for the purpose of protecting them from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power."

Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations

So it would seem that these states merely opposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 only on political reasons, those being that they, being dominated by Federalists, supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, rather than actual legal principles. Otherwise, they wouldn't have turned around and adopted the exact same arguments that they opposed in 1798 during Jefferson's Presidency.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So what power does should it have? Are they a court that can't rule on laws?

So if your claim, that prior the the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, that the Courts had no powers or functions?

Do you know how the courts had functioned and were intended to function before 1803?

From the LINK in the OP:

"Court decisions from 1788 to 1803[edit]Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."

What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Untitled

Next: Webster's Response:

I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not cooly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affaairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifiying prospects spread out before us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my visioon never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shing on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluteddd, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, plazing on all it sample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!!!!!!
Daniel Webster, address to the Senate, Jan. 27, 1830.

Libertarians are not patriots, they are selfish and callous. Liberty to them is freedom to do what they want, when they want and without any concern for the welfare of anyone but themselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!!!!!!
Daniel Webster, address to the Senate, Jan. 27, 1830.

Libertarians are not patriots, they are selfish and callous. Liberty to them is freedom to do what they want, when they want and without any concern for the welfare of anyone but themselves.

Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So if your claim, that prior the the establishment of Judicial Review in 1803, that the Courts had no powers or functions?

Do you know how the courts had functioned and were intended to function before 1803?

From the LINK in the OP:

"Court decisions from 1788 to 1803[edit]Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."

What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.

That is not how the Constitution is written nor how it was intended to operate, article III is clear all matters dealing with federal law and the Constitution are the preview of the Supreme Court in fact and as to law. I have cited the passage. that you are to ignorant to comprehend the written word does not invalidate the actual power granted to the Court. And if the Court ever over steps its bounds the Congress has the power to rein it in.

If as you claim the several States must hold conventions when ever there is a dispute between a State and the federal Government there would be NO Article III and no need to move away from the original form of Government the States had.

I have quoted it for you numerous times, you can stomp your feet , close your eyes and chant nanananananana all you want, it is clear and concise.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

From the LINK in the OP:

"Court decisions from 1788 to 1803[edit]Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."

What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.

That is not how the Constitution is written nor how it was intended to operate, article III is clear all matters dealing with federal law and the Constitution are the preview of the Supreme Court in fact and as to law. I have cited the passage. that you are to ignorant to comprehend the written word does not invalidate the actual power granted to the Court. And if the Court ever over steps its bounds the Congress has the power to rein it in.

If as you claim the several States must hold conventions when ever there is a dispute between a State and the federal Government there would be NO Article III and no need to move away from the original form of Government the States had.

I have quoted it for you numerous times, you can stomp your feet , close your eyes and chant nanananananana all you want, it is clear and concise.

So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What the question should be is:

Should the Supreme Court be the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution?

Well clearly the Supreme Court can NOT overturn the verdict of a Jury; however, ignoring that particular subject, let us continue:

Clearly the power of judicial review in inherent to the Court, as it must first judge whether or not the Court has JURISDICTION over the case.

However, should the Supreme Court get the final say in this matter? No, how can the agent of the States be superior to the States themselves.

If a State nullifies a decision of the Supreme Court, then the other States, if they feel as if the Compact has been violated (meaning if the other States feel as if the other State is WRONG in nullifying a law), then they must hold a CONVENTION to determine whether or not that particular Federal Law or Power should be granted to the Federal Government.

If the hold a Convention upon 2/3 of the States request, they must then receive 3/4 of the other States approval in order to COERCE the remaining States into following that Federal Law via AMENDING the Constitution --- and yes, I mean COERCE as in Calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union.

If that State feels as if it has been significantly aggrieved by a 3/4 majority of her sister States, she may secede from the Union, at the expense of forfeiting all other benefits and protections of that Union.

That is how it WAS intended to work.

That is not how the Constitution is written nor how it was intended to operate, article III is clear all matters dealing with federal law and the Constitution are the preview of the Supreme Court in fact and as to law. I have cited the passage. that you are to ignorant to comprehend the written word does not invalidate the actual power granted to the Court. And if the Court ever over steps its bounds the Congress has the power to rein it in.

If as you claim the several States must hold conventions when ever there is a dispute between a State and the federal Government there would be NO Article III and no need to move away from the original form of Government the States had.

I have quoted it for you numerous times, you can stomp your feet , close your eyes and chant nanananananana all you want, it is clear and concise.

So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?

Have you read article III? It clearly states that as to law the Supreme Court has primary and appellate Jurisdiction in ALL matters dealing with the US, all Federal laws and all Federal Officials. Further it states that in ANY dispute between a state with the federal Government the Supreme Court has primary authority as to law. It further states that any conflict between two or more States the Supreme Court has authority as to law.

Shall I quote it for you again?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?

Have you read article III? It clearly states that as to law the Supreme Court has primary and appellate Jurisdiction in ALL matters dealing with the US, all Federal laws and all Federal Officials. Further it states that in ANY dispute between a state with the federal Government the Supreme Court has primary authority as to law. It further states that any conflict between two or more States the Supreme Court has authority as to law.

Shall I quote it for you again?

Answer the question, do you believe that the Federal Government is to be the final judge of its own powers?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you claim is that the Federal Government is the final Arbiter of its own powers?

Have you read article III? It clearly states that as to law the Supreme Court has primary and appellate Jurisdiction in ALL matters dealing with the US, all Federal laws and all Federal Officials. Further it states that in ANY dispute between a state with the federal Government the Supreme Court has primary authority as to law. It further states that any conflict between two or more States the Supreme Court has authority as to law.

Shall I quote it for you again?

Answer the question, do you believe that the Federal Government is to be the final judge of its own powers?

The people elect Congress and that is their power. And yes the Constitution grants authority to the 3 branches of the Federal Government and is Supreme to the States. Or do I need to quote the Supremacy clause too?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

Article VI 2nd paragraph.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The States agreed to the Constitution which grants power over them to the Federal Government. And with in that Constitution Article III states that all laws of the Federal Government that are challenged shall go before the Supreme Court either as primary authority or appellate, that any dispute between a State or States within the US against the federal Government shall be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. That the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not legal in regards all laws of the US. Meaning they decide what challenged laws are and are not Constitutional. And as has been pointed out they have been doing it since the Court was established.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

Article VI 2nd paragraph.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The States agreed to the Constitution which grants power over them to the Federal Government. And with in that Constitution Article III states that all laws of the Federal Government that are challenged shall go before the Supreme Court either as primary authority or appellate, that any dispute between a State or States within the US against the federal Government shall be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. That the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not legal in regards all laws of the US. Meaning they decide what challenged laws are and are not Constitutional. And as has been pointed out they have been doing it since the Court was established.

The very first line of the Supremacy Clause undermines your own argument. Only those laws made within the strict limitations of the Constitution ("the pursuance thereof") are Supreme Law of the Land.

Since the 10th Amendment was ratified (and the Ninth) AFTER the original Constitution, how do you believe the 10th Amendment interacts with your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!!!!!!
Daniel Webster, address to the Senate, Jan. 27, 1830.

Libertarians are not patriots, they are selfish and callous. Liberty to them is freedom to do what they want, when they want and without any concern for the welfare of anyone but themselves.

Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are.

To steal is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.



Gee, using an emoticon is easy. Silly, but easy.

So is a third grade defense of, "you too".

Fact is I never steal nor do I talk about my generosity. Fact is threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' argue they and other conservatives are more generous and greater benefactors of he poor, aged, etc., and liberals, progressives, Democrats use food and shelter to keep the poor poor and that is bullshit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseperable!!!!!!
Daniel Webster, address to the Senate, Jan. 27, 1830.

Libertarians are not patriots, they are selfish and callous. Liberty to them is freedom to do what they want, when they want and without any concern for the welfare of anyone but themselves.

Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are.

To steal is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.



Gee, using an emoticon is easy. Silly, but easy.

So is a third grade defense of, "you too".

Fact is I never steal nor do I talk about my generosity. Fact is threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' argue they and other conservatives are more generous and greater benefactors of he poor, aged, etc., and liberals, progressives, Democrats use food and shelter to keep the poor poor and that is bullshit.

You know what else is easy? Broad hyperbolic generalizations with no basis in reality.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are.

To steal is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.



Gee, using an emoticon is easy. Silly, but easy.

So is a third grade defense of, "you too".

Fact is I never steal nor do I talk about my generosity. Fact is threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' argue they and other conservatives are more generous and greater benefactors of he poor, aged, etc., and liberals, progressives, Democrats use food and shelter to keep the poor poor and that is bullshit.

You know what else is easy? Broad hyperbolic generalizations with no basis in reality.

I see you've been trying to "debate" with Wry.....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Judicial Review has been part of our justice system since the earliest days of the colonies. We can each find quotes from the past to support our separate opinions, but on this issue history can not be revised.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberty to a liberal is the freedom to steal from their neighbor and then talk about how generous they are.

To steal is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.



Gee, using an emoticon is easy. Silly, but easy.

So is a third grade defense of, "you too".

Fact is I never steal nor do I talk about my generosity. Fact is threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' argue they and other conservatives are more generous and greater benefactors of he poor, aged, etc., and liberals, progressives, Democrats use food and shelter to keep the poor poor and that is bullshit.

You know what else is easy? Broad hyperbolic generalizations with no basis in reality.

You really need to buy a dictionary. I don't steal is a statement of fact, nothing hyperbolic there. Fact is, threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' have claimed that they are more generous in their giving to the needy. Fact is, 'conservatives' have often claimed support for a safety net is what is keeping the poor poor. Not one bit of hyperbole in any of those statements.

You can disagree, feel free. But anyone who has read threads and posts on this message board knows these statements are factual and those who deny facts are liars.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To steal is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.



Gee, using an emoticon is easy. Silly, but easy.

So is a third grade defense of, "you too".

Fact is I never steal nor do I talk about my generosity. Fact is threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' argue they and other conservatives are more generous and greater benefactors of he poor, aged, etc., and liberals, progressives, Democrats use food and shelter to keep the poor poor and that is bullshit.

You know what else is easy? Broad hyperbolic generalizations with no basis in reality.

You really need to buy a dictionary. I don't steal is a statement of fact, nothing hyperbolic there. Fact is, threads have been posted wherein 'conservatives' have claimed that they are more generous in their giving to the needy. Fact is, 'conservatives' have often claimed support for a safety net is what is keeping the poor poor. Not one bit of hyperbole in any of those statements.

You can disagree, feel free. But anyone who has read threads and posts on this message board knows these statements are factual and those who deny facts are liars.

Apparently you didn't see what I did there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

Article VI 2nd paragraph.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The States agreed to the Constitution which grants power over them to the Federal Government. And with in that Constitution Article III states that all laws of the Federal Government that are challenged shall go before the Supreme Court either as primary authority or appellate, that any dispute between a State or States within the US against the federal Government shall be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. That the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not legal in regards all laws of the US. Meaning they decide what challenged laws are and are not Constitutional. And as has been pointed out they have been doing it since the Court was established.

The very first line of the Supremacy Clause undermines your own argument. Only those laws made within the strict limitations of the Constitution ("the pursuance thereof") are Supreme Law of the Land.

Since the 10th Amendment was ratified (and the Ninth) AFTER the original Constitution, how do you believe the 10th Amendment interacts with your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Once again for the slow and stupid, the Supreme Court decides that. as delegated in the Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Article VI 2nd paragraph.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The States agreed to the Constitution which grants power over them to the Federal Government. And with in that Constitution Article III states that all laws of the Federal Government that are challenged shall go before the Supreme Court either as primary authority or appellate, that any dispute between a State or States within the US against the federal Government shall be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. That the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and is not legal in regards all laws of the US. Meaning they decide what challenged laws are and are not Constitutional. And as has been pointed out they have been doing it since the Court was established.

The very first line of the Supremacy Clause undermines your own argument. Only those laws made within the strict limitations of the Constitution ("the pursuance thereof") are Supreme Law of the Land.

Since the 10th Amendment was ratified (and the Ninth) AFTER the original Constitution, how do you believe the 10th Amendment interacts with your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Once again for the slow and stupid, the Supreme Court decides that. as delegated in the Constitution.

Interesting the the mainstream opinion, pre-1860's was in stark contrast to yours.