Interposition is the law of the land. You can look it up as implicit in the 9th and 10th Amendments and as clearly expressed in the 14th at Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, key phrase "or enforce":

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Interposition is the law of the land. You can look it up as implicit in the 9th and 10th Amendments and as clearly expressed in the 14th at Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, key phrase "or enforce":

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

You are espousing the doctrine of judicial review and it's not in the "original text." In fact this idea was specifically brought up in the Constitutional Convention in the form of a judicial veto and was rejected by the framers. So much for all the drafters explicitly intending and agreeing to the idea of judicial review.

Alex here claims that since something isn’t listed in the text of the constitution, the STATES cannot do it.

BUZZZZZZZZ. wrong.

The constitution is a listing of things the FEDS can do, with article I, section 10 being specific prohibitions on states. Since there is no such prohibition on state activity….well it just ain’t prohibited.

But Alex’s goal (with his multiple ip addresses from very \”suspicious” locations) isn’t likely the truth. I would suspect it’s his intention to lie and misdirect.

But that just my gut instinct after nearly 13 years of managing websites….

I am just trying to understand your constitutional thought. Thanks—

Judges are not the only arbiters of what is constitutional. Ed's point is well made – interposition fails because there is a crapload of money being funneled that the feds can shut off if the states do not play ball.

I think that the threat of interposition is enough to scare off the feds and change direction.

Ed Martin's website is http://edmartinformissouri.com

1) Can the actions, laws and/or rulings of any of the branches of the federal government ever be in "defiance of constitutional authority"? Your comments seem to indicate that the US Constitution treats states as an afterthought or of little importance as one of the depositories of political sovereignty.

2) Can the decisions and opinions of the judiciary EVER be unconstitutional? And if so what is to be done?

3) If it is possible for the three federal branches to do anything unconstitutional, what is to be done when they are all doing or sustaining unconstitutional acts and laws?

4) And if the federal judiciary, which is made up of justices who are unelected, is the final arbiter of all actions and laws of the other federal branches and states, the only interpreter of the constitution and interposition is hogwash, what system of government are we living under? A republic? A democracy? An oligarchy? A monarchy? An aristocracy?

I really am seeking to understand your constitutional thinking? Thanks–

In creating the national government, the people didn't give the states the right to negate the national government's laws. Rather, the people specified that the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land and are superior to state laws. That's in the "original text" (Article VI). The people specified that all cases arising under the Constitution are within the judicial power of the federal courts, and that the Supreme Court has the final authority to decide those cases (Article III). That's in the "original text." The drafters well understood and explicitly intended that this would give the federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, the final say about what the Constitution means. That's why the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions are authoritative.

There is no limitation in the constitution that limits who a state can arrest. Can a federal officer be immune from the state law of murder simply because they are federal officers? No person is immune from the legal authority of the state.