Here is where you are totally stupid. The states are subject to the constitution. No one has ever denied that but that means that the states are subject to the supreme LAW of the land. Laws are nothing more than restrictions on its subjects which happen to be the states which is what your own quote that you provided says. This means that states are subject to its restrictions which are mostly listed in Section 9 of the constitution. States are prohibited from doing these things which means that that they are free to do everything else in the same way you are free to do anything the law does not restrict you from doing.

Ultimately it says that states are subject to the constitution and not to the federal government so just because a branch of the federal government said "NO" does not mean a state is bound by that decision whatsoever.

Judges were given lifetime appointments to enable them to be unaffected by the winds of politics. But anyone who sees the way challenges to a law or regulation are geographically designed for the suit to encounter favorable judges realizes that justice is not blind. Anyone who sees the political theater of nominating and confirming justices understands that placing the "RIGHT" nominee on the bench has long, long benefit to the winning politcal party. That's why "Borked" is now a verb in American english. And anyone reading this also knows that 350,000,000 people can be told by ONE swing Supreme Court Justice how they must act, and there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RELIEF if that one justice happens to be wrong.

Think of the States as the Board of Governors, the Constitution as the Bylaws, and the branches of the Federal Government as the officers of and the operations group that run the day-to-day operations of the "corporation" of the United States of America. What would a Board of Directors do if one or more of the operating groups were to exceed its intended authority under the bylaws? It would modify the bylaws, to make sure that the group had better controls on its actions, so that the Board's directions were understood and followed.

What we have in the US "bylaws" is one group without a check or balance: the Court. If we modify the procedures, such that the Court has to operate within the intent of the States, then they will begin to honor their obligations under the 10th amendment. But it will go beyond that… If the more partisan rulings cannot be made, then the lower courts will become less partisan, the laws will become less partisan, and the regulations will become less extreme. Remember think LONG TERM.

With the lust for power we see in all three branches of the federal government, it's apparent that we have a situation wherein neither the Congress nor Executive can be trusted to check the Court. To regain authority over the direction of the Republic, the States must have veto power over the Supreme Court. Mind you, this should not be considered adjudicating, any more than is the veto power of the President considered legislating.

For more definition as to how to accomplish an amendment to implement this needed structural correction to the Constitution, and some expansion on reasons why, visit
http://www.facebook.com/notes/veto-the-court/1-wh…

and reply to this post, or send an email directly to courtamendment@gmail.com

Judges were given lifetime appointments to enable them to be unaffected by the winds of politics. But anyone who sees the way challenges to a law or regulation are geographically designed for the suit to encounter favorable judges realizes that justice is not blind. Anyone who sees the political theater of nominating and confirming justices understands that placing the "RIGHT" nominee on the bench has long, long benefit to the winning politcal party. That's why "Borked" is now a verb in American english. And anyone reading this also knows that 350,000,000 people can be told by ONE swing Supreme Court Justice how they must act, and there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RELIEF if that one justice happens to be wrong.

Think of the States as the Board of Governors, the Constitution as the Bylaws, and the branches of the Federal Government as the officers of and the operations group that run the day-to-day operations of the "corporation" of the United States of America. What would a Board of Directors do if one or more of the operating groups were to exceed its intended authority under the bylaws? It would modify the bylaws, to make sure that the group had better controls on its actions, so that the Board's directions were understood and followed.

What we have in the US "bylaws" is one group without a check or balance: the Court. If we modify the procedures, such that the Court has to operate within the intent of the States, then they will begin to honor their obligations under the 10th amendment. But it will go beyond that… If the more partisan rulings cannot be made, then the lower courts will become less partisan, the laws will become less partisan, and the regulations will become less extreme. Remember think LONG TERM.

With the lust for power we see in all three branches of the federal government, it's apparent that we have a situation wherein neither the Congress nor Executive can be trusted to check the Court. To regain authority over the direction of the Republic, the States must have veto power over the Supreme Court. Mind you, this should not be considered adjudicating, any more than is the veto power of the President considered legislating.

For more definition as to how to accomplish an amendment to implement this needed structural correction to the Constitution, and some expansion on reasons why, visit
http://www.facebook.com/notes/veto-the-court/1-wh…

Then reply here, or send an email to CourtAmendment@gmail.com

U.S. Supreme Court
Wilson v. Mason, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 45 45 (1801)

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court:

"The Constitution of the United States, to which the parties [Kentucky and Virginia] to this COMPACT had assented, gave jurisdiction to the federal courts in controversies between citizens of different states."

I'll let you argue the legal aspects w/other's more knowledgable.

The author asserts that a case involving an unconstitutional federal law doesn't arise under the Constitution; rather, it arises outside the Constitution. That's circular reasoning. He's merely assuming that the law in question is unconstitutional, then he asserts that the federal courts don't have power to determine whether it's constitutional because it's unconstitutional. He assumes his conclusion. That's not even logical, let alone a valid legal analysis. If that were true, a federal court would never have the power to declare any law unconstitutional. In fact, a federal court could never even hear a case in which a law was claimed to be unconstitutional. That's simply an untenable legal position, to put it charitably.

The author seems to like Chief Justice Marshall, so let's see what Marshall had to say about this issue. In Cohens v. Virginia (1821), Marshall wrote for the Court: "A case . . . may truly be said to arise under the Constitution or a law of the United States whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either." That's a well-established, undisputed principle of law. It would apply to any federal statute that is claimed to be unconstitutional, or to any state nullification statute that purports to nullify a federal law. Reviewing such statutes would "depend on the construction" of the Constitution and of the federal law in question. Therefore such a case would be within the federal judicial power. The federal courts would have power to hear such a case. The Supreme Court would have ultimate appellate authority to review any state nullification statute, along with the federal statute in question. Indeed, federal courts have been deciding cases involving state nullification attempts for over 200 years.

The author quotes Justice Marshall as saying "the judicial power cannot extend to political compacts," and concludes that the federal judicial power therefore does not extend to the review of a state nullification statute. That's an egregious, blatantly misleading distortion of Marshall's statement. Marshall made that statement in 1800 when he was a member of Congress. Marshall wasn't talking about the supposed "compact" among the states to form the Constitution. Rather, he was talking about a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, in the context of an extradition request by the British government to the President pursuant to the treaty. Marshall's point was that the President has full authority over implementation and execution of treaties with foreign nations, and that implementation of a treaty with a foreign nation was a matter committed to the President rather than the courts. That was an early example of the President's plenary authority over foreign policy. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the legal status or rights of the states, the constitutionality of federal statutes, the authority of the federal courts to decide constitutional issues, or the supposed "compact" among the states.

Rather, quite to the contrary, Marshall emphatically rejected the idea that the Constitution is a "compact" among sovereign states. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Marshall, writing for the Court, stated that while the Articles of Confederation may have been an agreement among the states, the Constitution was formed not by the states, but directly by the people. Marshall's opinion said that the states are not parties to the Constitution at all; rather, the people themselves directly established the Constitution and made the states subject to it. So, the author's citation to Marshall in this context is egregiously wrong. Marshall never said that the union is a "compact" and that the actions of the states are not subject to federal judicial review. Quite the opposite.

And of course, the author's assumption that the states have the power to nullify federal statutes has been rejected by the courts every time it has been tested. The idea of state nullification of federal laws is not a valid concept of constitutional law.