Replies

The US Constitution 'forces' states to conform. ALL officials swear to honor it in their oaths of office.

I don't think that the Constitution forced any states to conform except in very limited circumstances,

Read the supemacy clause, Art VI.. All States are bound by our "Law of the Land" is pretty forceful language.

and I don't believe that the Supreme Court was intended to have the role that Marshall pushed it into.

He pushed no one. The role of the USSC is part of our separations of power doctrine. The three branches are supposedly roughly equal in powers.
____________________________________

'Barron' and misguided 'states rights' movement it fostered was settled by a bloody civil war, and the 14th amendment.

I am 100% grade-A pro-Constitutionalist, in that I think that the Constitution should be a limiting document and speaks in plain language that has been consistently misinterpreted. But I do think that the Constitution doesn't speak to secession, and I think that before the Constitution, the States had the right to nullify any acts by the unifying government.
So I think the States should have had the same rights after the Constitution was ratified as well.

Sorry, that's not the way it worked. The people of the states gave up some of their power to benefit from union under our constitution.
They can't change that decision [nullify acts] without amendment.

That the cause was lost doesn't mean that they were wrong about the limitations on the power of the federal government.

Who said limiting fed power is wrong? Not me..

It's just that the wrong guys won, and ever since, federal intervention in all sorts of unConstitutional spheres has been expanding as a direct result.

The civil war did not change the power structure that much, imo..
I see the major change coming at the turn of the century, when both parties started to support socialistic programs..
Party politics have ruled both fed & state since then, and socialism has won.

The 'states rights' movement is wrongly blaming constitutionalism for our political socialism, imo.
They should be blaming republocratic 'two party' politics.

Read the supemacy clause, Art VI.. All States are bound by our "Law of the Land" is pretty forceful language.

---I have, but that clause wasn't extended without the consent of the States until after the Civil War, and thereafter it has been imposed.

[Marshall] pushed no one. The role of the USSC is part of our separations of power doctrine. The three branches are supposedly roughly equal in powers.

---I don't think it was intended to be. I think the miracle of Marbury is that it managed to hold up. After all, Marshall didn't actually do a darned thing to the federal government with Marbury.

---I think the court has let society assume that it was supposed to have been a third branch, but I have not seen substantial discussion about just what that role was to be from the founders. In fact, given their experience with law lords under the UK, it seems unlikely they would have delegated such a court with such a substantial power.

Sorry, that's not the way it worked. The people of the states gave up some of their power to benefit from union under our constitution. They can't change that decision [nullify acts] without amendment.

---I think that would have been the case pre-Civil War, and there are plenty that agreed with me then. Now, obviously, all seem certain of the supremacy of the federal government, and argument by force certainly has the power to claim it is correct. Luckily, having the biggest gun doesn't make you right, or the Germans would have been right during WWI.

Who said limiting fed power is wrong? Not me..

---Sorry to imply otherwise. I just know that the supremacy clause is what allows this monster to grow.

The civil war did not change the power structure that much, imo..I see the major change coming at the turn of the century, when both parties started to support socialistic programs..Party politics have ruled both fed & state since then, and socialism has won.

---Do a little more looking into the federal Republicans just after Lincoln got elected. They gathered at the trough and started this feeding, and mercantilists have been chowing down ever since.

The 'states rights' movement is wrongly blaming constitutionalism for our political socialism, imo.
They should be blaming republocratic 'two party' politics.

---I have no issues with Constitutionalism. I just trust smaller governments more than larger ones. I think the more the federal government gathers power, the less the people have to do with it. And I honestly believe the more people have to do with government, the less government does.

We have no argument about republocrats. I just think that the supremacy clause is a joke, one that is only occasionally cited as a rationale when the SupCt can't extend some other already bloated part of the federal government any other way.