Our political divide, Part 1

You're saying that states in this country are nations...why?

A compact made between two or more independent nations with a view to the public Welfare.
treaty
n. a pact between nations which, if entered into by the United States through its Executive Branch, must be approved by "two-thirds of the Senators present," under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, to become effective. Presidents sometimes get around the Senate by entering into "Executive Agreements" with leaders of other countries which are a mode of cooperation and not enforceable treaties.

 

Our constitution is a treaty between sovereign States. A nation is a group of people. A country is a geographic area. A State is a legal entity representing a group of people in a geographic area.

civics 101

 

I've read it...many, many times. Unless you can provide citations that support your opinion, I prefer to drop it.
Have a nice day.

 

Note that I said nothing about individuals.

A sovereign, who by definition answers to no higher Earthly authority, may do something just because he wants to. His vassals, OTOH, when acting on his authority, may only do what pleases the sovereign, just as every federal gov't entity - which can only act on the authority of the People - is constrained to do only what pleases the People.

 

True...as expressed by the law made by their elected representatives.

 

No, the supreme expression of the will of the People is of course the Constitution, wherefore federal statutes only qualify as expressions of Their will if they are made in pursuance thereof.

 

True...the Constitution is in essence the "Basic Law" (as the Germans call their own Constitution). But, curiously, judicial review isn't in the Constitution.

 

Sure it is, if it's defined as the authority of a federal court to openly disregard an unconstitutional federal statute and rule accordingly.

 

And, where do you find that in the Constitution?

 

It's implied in the supremacy clause.

 

So Marshall successfully argued. But it's an assumed power, based on his interpretation in Marbury v. Madison, 1803. It's not granted in the Constitution itself. It's in the vein of "well...it's a tough job, but SOMEBODY has to do it." IMO.

 

No, it's implied.

It's actually more like a responsibility.

As to the issue under discussion, his interpretation is clearly correct.

Yes it is. It's just not explictly enumerated.

 

I have no interest in arguing semantics. Have a nice evening.

 

Be that as it may, you're plenty interested in preserving your constitutional misconceptions, obviously.