I'll let Jefferson answer that:

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

(Queue Citizens United BTW)

And how did that change Marbury vs Madison?

As far as I can tell, Gary said nothing about ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, while it is true that judges can temporarily settle some disputes, their decisions can always be overturned by a constitutional amendment, i.e. they are not "ultimate", that title belongs to the US Constitution.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And who has the power to amend that Constitution?

And who has the power to amend that Constitution?

A. "shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states"

Further: The signers of the Constitution declared:

"Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven."

And who has the power to amend that Constitution?

Article 5 of the US Constitution has:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

(from : https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev)

I'm confused, how does this support your "ultimate arbiters" criticism of Gary's Marbury vs Madison comment? Or are you saying this lends support to the idea that the sovereignty of the US Federal Government is somehow derived from the States (which seemed to be what MK was saying)?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

We know & if you or your ilk want us to stop commenting on your country, pull your fingers out & stop interfering with those countries.

I agree, and we'll see how 'me and my ilk' go about "pulling your fingers out & stop interfering with those countries".

A good place to start might be eliminating this 'interference'.......maybe you and your "ilk" might like to take up the slack?

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Bobby, they don't understand that Congress can refuse to accept a call by a given state for a convention by saying the document they get, calling for one, is out of order. A procedural vote, simple majority. That way they can assure that the States can never have a convention. (Doubt they would dare do it, but they have the power to do so. They may well however say that a call is valid only for a session of congress wiping out all those old calls by making each state reaffirm its call is still validly in force.)

The people then can elect different representatives to congress who do not reject the call. As we now have direct election of representatives it seems the people are the source and the states have none. This happened when the Senators changed from being elected by the State Governments to the people.

As to Marbury vs Madison, portions of State Constitutions have been ruled invalid or in conflict with the Federal Constitution and hence unenforceable.

States come into existence only with the blessing of congress after they swear their allegiance to, petition, the USA. (except 13 who transferred from the confederation) (Texas seems to have been allowed some special provisions too.)

---

Bobby,

Look at your own source.
Read it.
Preamble . Article 5 and the signatory statement.

The States as representatives of their citizens give the Federal Government it's sovereignty.

MK is correct. Alex is correct.

We know & if you or your ilk want us to stop commenting on your country, pull your fingers out & stop interfering with those countries.

I agree, and we'll see how 'me and my ilk' go about "pulling your fingers out & stop interfering with those countries".
A good place to start might be eliminating this 'interference'.......maybe you and your "ilk" might like to take up the slack?

I hope everyone understand that most of the money "spended" are part of bilateral agreements.

Bobby,

Look at your own source.
Read it.
Preamble . Article 5 and the signatory statement.

The States as representatives of their citizens give the Federal Government it's sovereignty.

MK is correct. Alex is correct.

The signing statement makes clear that the States ceded any sovereignty they had to the US Constitution on joining the Union, and then got some limited version of sovereignty back from that document. The sovereignty of the USA is not created from the sovereignty of the States. The USA's authority comes from its citizens. MK is wrong.

Neither people, nor States, nor Federal government get any powers or rights from the Preamble.

That's a view, another is that the States and the Federal government get all their powers from the US Constitution, and the US Constitution gets it's power from the People (as noted in the Preamble). I suspect the authors of the US Constitution knew what they were doing when the put in the Preamble and made clear that it was the People that were providing authority to the US Constitution, it may have been to contrast it with nations which have Monarchs who claim their authority comes from a person above the sky. The people do not have to get powers from the US Constitution, the flow of power is in the other direction. That Article 5 says that States are involved with amendments does not change the simple idea, people have the power, they grant it to the Supreme Law of the land, and that Supreme Law defines how that power is to be divided up. States are an outcome of this, not a precursor. That there happened to be some states prior to the Constitution being drafted was good fortune for the drafters, and may have been an historical necessity for the thing to get going, but it doesn't change origin of the US Constitution's authority. Lincoln was right to call our system "Government of the people, by the people", and not to refer to States in that formulation.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I think one of the major contributors to the Constitution might shed some light on People vs States with regard to election.....

Thomas Jefferson :Quotation: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

Thus the Electoral College and the formation of 'The Republic'.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Lincoln was right to call our system "Government of the people, by the people", and not to refer to States in that formulation.

To me as an outsider this sounds weird thinking of the outcome of this year's election.
"Government of the people, by the people" sounds to me is that the majority rules.
But not in the US. It's the electorals who rules.

"Government of the people, by the people" sounds to me is that the majority rules.

And that is correct.
The Majority in the Majority of States won...........real simple.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

"Government of the people, by the people" sounds to me is that the majority rules.

And that is correct.
The Majority in the Majority of States won...........real simple.

To us outsiders your voting system is not by far simple:)
But then again we have to deal with the EU voting system that NOBODY knows how it works.
"Henry Kissinger noted shortly before the election that 'for the first time since the end of the Second World War, the future relationship of America to the world is not fully settled'. From the European point of view, that is a big understatement."

Lincoln was right to call our system "Government of the people, by the people", and not to refer to States in that formulation.

To me as an outsider this sounds weird thinking of the outcome of this year's election.
"Government of the people, by the people" sounds to me is that the majority rules.
But not in the US. It's the electorals who rules.

Just a whisker over a majority voted, giving the Drumpf about 26% of the country for him and about 74% against him.

---

Lincoln was right to call our system "Government of the people, by the people", and not to refer to States in that formulation.

To me as an outsider this sounds weird thinking of the outcome of this year's election.
"Government of the people, by the people" sounds to me is that the majority rules.
But not in the US. It's the electorals who rules.

Just a whisker over a majority voted, giving the Drumpf about 26% of the country for him and about 74% against him.

Giving the turnout in this election most US citizens doesn't seem to care.
50% ?
Well thats a better turnout than Russia had this year that was 35% :)

It took 9 of 13 States to ratify the US Constitution and create the United States government... not 51% of the people.

What states? If there wasn't a USA there weren't states. The Continental Congress adopted the Confederation, the constitution of the USA, no states existed when that happened, just colonies.

The wholesale amendment to that Constitution, drawn up by the Constitutional Convention, did require the now existing states to repudiate the old and adopt the new as they were surrendering their sovereignty.

I know the Tea-Trump really hates the Confederation as it points out the USA has already tried huge power to the states and near zero to the Federal government and that test was a failure. That can't admit they are just proposing failure warmed over.

Gary,

Have you ever read the Articles of Confederation??

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting.
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did, on the 15th day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia in the words following, viz. "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia".

Article I.
The Stile of this confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Article II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Sorry...

The United States did not create the States. The States created the United States of America ('v1.0' under the Articles of Confederation, 'v2.0' under the Constitution).

And to answer you regarding the Status of the States under the US Constitution,

'States' is mentioned frequently in the US Constitution, but more specifically:

Amendment X

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.

not to mention:

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

...

Effectively, every US Citizen has 'dual Citizenship'... The USA, AND the State they reside in.
The basic unit of sovereignty in the USA is the State, as a constitutional republic. The State gets its sovereignty from the People (its citizens) in THAT State. All other levels of Government below the State (city, county, etc.) are CREATED by the State. The US Federal Government is a creation of the several States, and obtains its sovereignty from the limited grants given it by the several States under the US Constitution. The States CREATED the US Federal Government.

The USA is a Federal constitutional Republic of (currently 50) constitutional Republics.

There are 51 different sovereign Governments in the USA. Deal with it.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The USA is a Federal constitutional Republic of (currently 50) constitutional Republics.
There are 51 different sovereign Governments in the USA. Deal with it.

Seems like we in Europe, EU, have the same "problem".
28 countries that doesn't even share the same language.
Deal with it.

The USA is a Federal constitutional Republic of (currently 50) constitutional Republics.
There are 51 different sovereign Governments in the USA. Deal with it.

Seems like we in Europe, EU, have the same "problem".
28 countries that doesn't even share the same language.
Deal with it.

A lot of the USA Citizens don't speak English. The USA does NOT even have an official language of any sort. English is just the most common in the USA as a whole.

The IRS, for instance, offers year-round support in English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Korean, AND Vietnamese.

The EU is really similar in its organization to the USA. Of course, many in the EU don't really want to hear it.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

MK, Perhaps you should read the minutes of the Continental Congress of the Colonies where a committee to draft the Articles of Confederation was authorized. Also note the date. I think you will find it before another important date.

The cart does not come before the horse.

---

A lot of the USA Citizens don't speak English. The USA does NOT even have an official language of any sort. English is just the most common in the USA as a whole.
The IRS, for instance, offers year-round support in English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Korean, AND Vietnamese.
The EU is really similar in its organization to the USA. Of course, many in the EU don't really want to hear it.

A lot of the USA Citizens don't speak English?
What?
OK. I know some Finns that refuse to speak Swedish despite that they have lived here for longer than 30 years!

That the EU is really similar in its organization to the USA is wellknown here.
And most of us in the "EU" are carefully listening to what the US are dictating.