The Tenth Amendment and the word “expressly”

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument

I have not see an argument over the word expressly being excluded except in places like this.

I am of the opinion that even if the word had been there...Roosevelt's justices would have ignored it.

Don't know for sure. They sure seemed to care less about what the previous court had ruled.

Actually not.

Again, the Court has been consistent when addressing 10th Amendment claims: that the states are subordinate to acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts, which is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights – rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, including state governments.

It is inconsistent to assume that the Federal government alone is prohibited from violating citizens' rights, while at the same time allowing the states to do just that.

Inalienable rights are indeed inalienable – immune from attack by all governments: Federal, state, and local.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You might take a look at the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 between Patrick Henry and George Mason on one side and James Madison and John Marshall on the other-- I believe the debate occurs on or about June 17, 1788 IIRC. Then take a look at St George Tucker's Blackstone on the same article found in the appendix. You might look at the 10th with a different perspective....

You might want to look at the case law concerning 10th Amendment claims, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law:

“The [Tenth A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Consequently, the Tenth Amendment does not 'authorize' the states to 'ignore' or seek to 'nullify' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts. The states have no 'authority' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, as that is the sole purview of the Federal courts.

And this is indeed the original intent of the Founding Generation: that Federal laws, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, safeguarding the rights of the American citizens who reside in the states, whose rights are neither subject to 'majority rule' nor the 'will of the people':

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

I am well aware of all this.

Was there a point you wanted to make ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument

I have not see an argument over the word expressly being excluded except in places like this.

I am of the opinion that even if the word had been there...Roosevelt's justices would have ignored it.

Don't know for sure. They sure seemed to care less about what the previous court had ruled.

Actually not.

Again, the Court has been consistent when addressing 10th Amendment claims: that the states are subordinate to acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts, which is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights – rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, including state governments.

It is inconsistent to assume that the Federal government alone is prohibited from violating citizens' rights, while at the same time allowing the states to do just that.

Inalienable rights are indeed inalienable – immune from attack by all governments: Federal, state, and local.

Nobody assumed anything.

You are clearly part of the clique on this board that likes to make things up to argue against.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

The intent and understanding of the 10th Amendment has been consistent since its ratification, as the Court explained in Darby:it was never the intent of the Framers that the states might seek to 'ignore' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts; the Founding Generation sought to be citizens of one National government, a government of their creation, not 'citizens' of states – where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (See US Term Limits v. Thornton)

Nobody said anything about ignoring Federal laws.

That is why we have the SCOTUS.

This discussion is about the omission of a word.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

The intent and understanding of the 10th Amendment has been consistent since its ratification, as the Court explained in Darby:it was never the intent of the Framers that the states might seek to 'ignore' Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts; the Founding Generation sought to be citizens of one National government, a government of their creation, not 'citizens' of states – where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (See US Term Limits v. Thornton)

right: "The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views."

Then why did you bother to post the thread ?

This solves nothing, except in your own mind.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes,

Here is Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The problem is the real world where Americans worked things out and Madison's views on HOW things should work out. Madison lost some and won some as did others. Continually arguing that Madison's view was the one true correct view is silly.

Is it your habit to make things up to argue against ?

I simply pointed out what Madison said which I think counters the idea that the exclusion of the word has some meaning.

I have not argued against what the real world has arrived at.

It was one way yesterday, another today and will find yet others in the days to come.

I came here to have a conversation....if it is your intent to lecture...I'll bow out. I've noticed a lot of people started threads in this forum.

You must work pretty quick.

Did you simply point out what Madison said or did you take a stand, take a side? Please...

I pointed it out.

There is clearly a message in what Madison posted. There is nothing ambiguous about his statement about the powers going the federal government.

At the same time, I am very aware that the country is not currently there. It didn't start out from the beginning.

However, once Roosevelt got his way, the flood gates opened.....

We are there...I've never argued that wasn't the case.

But Madison's message can't be misconstrued.

Combined with the 10th, there is nothing ambiguous about it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

If you want to be treated as some kind of an academic or pedant please refrain from writing things like Marshall was full of shit.

Dante: "The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views."

SunDevil: "Actually, we don't have 200 years of history. The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned. Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected. The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does."

translation?

"As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems)" -- Huh? What have you read about Marshall and I mean books, not web posts or pages. why not try one of Jeffrey Rosen's books?

If you want to debate Marshall, start another thread.

Rosen...the guy who supported Kagen ? That Rosen ?

No thanks.

Like I said, if you want to debate Marshall (in general), start another thread.

For now, it is quite clear to me that expressly has no meaning here.

The rest of my post stands.

Justices still claim there is a limit to what the Federal Government can do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

If you want to be treated as some kind of an academic or pedant please refrain from writing things like Marshall was full of shit.

Dante: "The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views."

SunDevil: "Actually, we don't have 200 years of history. The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned. Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected. The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does."

translation?

"As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems)" -- Huh? What have you read about Marshall and I mean books, not web posts or pages. why not try one of Jeffrey Rosen's books?

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

Your opinion is duly noted, but Chief Justice John Marshall was NOT full of crap. The fact that you disagree with his opinions, opinions that won at the time, does not make for evidence of your silly arguments being credible arguments.

The 'people' accepted it at the time. The nation has an over 200 year history of case law and precedents established upon Marshall's winning views. Maybe you just like an idea of America while holding America herself in contempt? You appear to suffer from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder that has you hating the ultimate mother.

Actually, we don't have 200 years of history.

The implicit concept contained in the 10th was well adhered to for over a century after it being penned.

Granted it wasn't always perfect, but it certainly was not neglected.

The SCOTUS has held to the idea of a limited federal government for years and still does.

Read the dissent from Obamacare....it wasn't the majority...but some justices certainly feel it holds.

As to Marshall, the man was inconsistent (conflicted it seems).

You can shove the rest of your post.

If you don't want participation in your threads why don't you post...."I'll just attack you personally if I don't agree with you."

It would save us a lot of time.

If you want to be treated as some kind of an academic or pedant please refrain from writing things like Marshall was full of shit.

If you like talking to yourself, you can keep at it.

I'll make those claims and if you don't like them, you can say so.

Taking license to attack in a thread like this will only get you silence.

If having all 10 threads all posted by you and pretty much only addressed by your buddies is your goal.....then apparently you are there.

 

[Dante]

You might take a look at the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 between Patrick Henry and George Mason on one side and James Madison and John Marshall on the other-- I believe the debate occurs on or about June 17, 1788 IIRC. Then take a look at St George Tucker's Blackstone on the same article found in the appendix. You might look at the 10th with a different perspective....

You might want to look at the case law concerning 10th Amendment claims, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law:

“The [Tenth A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Consequently, the Tenth Amendment does not 'authorize' the states to 'ignore' or seek to 'nullify' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts. The states have no 'authority' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, as that is the sole purview of the Federal courts.

And this is indeed the original intent of the Founding Generation: that Federal laws, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, safeguarding the rights of the American citizens who reside in the states, whose rights are neither subject to 'majority rule' nor the 'will of the people':

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

I am well aware of all this.

Was there a point you wanted to make ?

You're pulling the same thing with Clayton you pulled with Dante.

you're trolling while acting as if you have points to make

 

[Dante]

Continuing to fight a battle already lost does a disservice to the nation and the argument

I have not see an argument over the word expressly being excluded except in places like this.

I am of the opinion that even if the word had been there...Roosevelt's justices would have ignored it.

Don't know for sure. They sure seemed to care less about what the previous court had ruled.

Actually not.

Again, the Court has been consistent when addressing 10th Amendment claims: that the states are subordinate to acts of Congress and the rulings of Federal courts, which is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights – rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, including state governments.

It is inconsistent to assume that the Federal government alone is prohibited from violating citizens' rights, while at the same time allowing the states to do just that.

Inalienable rights are indeed inalienable – immune from attack by all governments: Federal, state, and local.

Nobody assumed anything.

You are clearly part of the clique on this board that likes to make things up to argue against.

there you go again...

you troll and then accuse people of making up things to argue about.

do you have any friends or acquaintances out there in the real world that actually listen or talk to you?

 

[Dante]

I pointed it out.

Oh, I see!

You just post things. You inform us all. You point things out.

We will not question you ever ever again. please, accept our apologies with your forgiveness

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I pointed it out.

Oh, I see!

You just post things. You inform us all. You point things out.

We will not question you ever ever again. please, accept our apologies with your forgiveness

You asked the question asshole.

You got an answer.......

"Just pointed it out" was one of the options.

Good grief...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You might take a look at the debates in the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 between Patrick Henry and George Mason on one side and James Madison and John Marshall on the other-- I believe the debate occurs on or about June 17, 1788 IIRC. Then take a look at St George Tucker's Blackstone on the same article found in the appendix. You might look at the 10th with a different perspective....

You might want to look at the case law concerning 10th Amendment claims, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law:

“The [Tenth A]mendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
[...]
From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Consequently, the Tenth Amendment does not 'authorize' the states to 'ignore' or seek to 'nullify' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts. The states have no 'authority' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, as that is the sole purview of the Federal courts.

And this is indeed the original intent of the Founding Generation: that Federal laws, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions, safeguarding the rights of the American citizens who reside in the states, whose rights are neither subject to 'majority rule' nor the 'will of the people':

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

I am well aware of all this.

Was there a point you wanted to make ?

You're pulling the same thing with Clayton you pulled with Dante.

you're trolling while acting as if you have points to make

It's clear that CJ isn't going to summarize his point. More likely he can't.

If you want to try, I'm all ears.

Cracks me up that States can't deny people their rights....but the federal government did (women could not vote).

States like Wyoming were allowing women to vote in local elections some 50 years prior to the passage of the 19th.

What a crock

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We’ve been hearing this ignorant, unfounded nonsense from the right for decades: that the Supreme Court is ‘wrong,’ that the Court ‘misappropriated’ the doctrine of judicial review and its interpretive authority to determine what the Constitution means, and that the states possess some sort of ‘right’ to ignore Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts.

It is beyond dispute that the Founding Generation created a National government whose fundamental nature is supreme, a National government reflecting the will of the people, safeguarding the inalienable rights of the people, expressed and codified in the Federal Constitution, its jurisprudence the supreme law of the land.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We’ve been hearing this ignorant, unfounded nonsense from the right for decades: that the Supreme Court is ‘wrong,’ that the Court ‘misappropriated’ the doctrine of judicial review and its interpretive authority to determine what the Constitution means, and that the states possess some sort of ‘right’ to ignore Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts.

It is beyond dispute that the Founding Generation created a National government whose fundamental nature is supreme, a National government reflecting the will of the people, safeguarding the inalienable rights of the people, expressed and codified in the Federal Constitution, its jurisprudence the supreme law of the land.

You mean....like the right to vote.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We’ve been hearing this ignorant, unfounded nonsense from the right for decades: that the Supreme Court is ‘wrong,’ that the Court ‘misappropriated’ the doctrine of judicial review and its interpretive authority to determine what the Constitution means, and that the states possess some sort of ‘right’ to ignore Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts.

It is beyond dispute that the Founding Generation created a National government whose fundamental nature is supreme, a National government reflecting the will of the people, safeguarding the inalienable rights of the people, expressed and codified in the Federal Constitution, its jurisprudence the supreme law of the land.

It's nice you bring this up.

You are correct that the far right has blathered about that for years and years....not that it affected anything...I guess it makes them feel good.

My question is...just what the hell has that got to do with the thread ?

Or did you need to get something off of your chest ?

And that was with respect to your first paragraph. No body can argue we are not there.

As to your second paragraph...it clearly is in dispute by many.

Not sure what they expect to accomplish....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It is amazing that people even consider the argument presented in the OP.

A revolutionary war was fought to get out from a strong central government.

After the war, a government was formed under the Articles of Confederation.....a weak government that could not sustain itself.

That was a reflection of people at the time. NO STRONG CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

Then they figured out it didn't work.

So they formed another government. It was sold as a limited government. That is how things were written.

To state that the federal government was to be supreme in all matters is to ask why they bothered to call it the "The United States of Amercia" instead of just calling it America.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We’ve been hearing this ignorant, unfounded nonsense from the right for decades: that the Supreme Court is ‘wrong,’ that the Court ‘misappropriated’ the doctrine of judicial review and its interpretive authority to determine what the Constitution means, and that the states possess some sort of ‘right’ to ignore Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts.

It is beyond dispute that the Founding Generation created a National government whose fundamental nature is supreme, a National government reflecting the will of the people, safeguarding the inalienable rights of the people, expressed and codified in the Federal Constitution, its jurisprudence the supreme law of the land.

As I continue to work through this......

Here is from Madison in Federalist 46:

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, I suppose you could say that Madison pretty clearly disputes your claim. The whole business of protecting rights is actually addressed in 46 and again...Madison says the states will be sufficient to do this.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is the 10th amendment:

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.

Nothing ambiguous about that.

John Marshal was full of crap.

No, Chief Justice Marshall was following the Constitution, and the original intent of the Framing Generation.

Yes, we just quoted the so called original intent....and it slap Marshall down.

You have always shown yourself to be lacking when it come to any knowledge of the constitution.

BTW: Case law says what the courts are now following...not what was intended.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"...There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

[...]

From the beginning and for many years, the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Consequently, the Tenth Amendment does not 'authorize' the states to 'ignore' or seek to 'nullify' Federal law or the rulings of Federal courts. The states have no 'authority' to decide what is Constitutional and what is not, as that is the sole purview of the Federal courts....

thank you

No one ever said anything about nullifying laws.

It does say that the Federal government has limited scope.

But let them trample it as they please. You turds really don't care.

Let a state step forward and say..."hey wait a minute" and you ready to send in the army.

Quoting a case from 160 post ratification.....?? Please.