Are you referring to Forester? If so, please indicate where he has posted his credentials. Thank you.

__________________

It would have no bearing on freedom one way or the other.

Would you please explain how abolishing states rights has no bearing on freedom?

Sunshine, THF lists himself as a professor of history in his public profile.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

Freedom is something that an individual holds, with respect to ANY government at ANY level, or with respect to nongovernmental organizations or powerful individuals. The powers of one level of government with respect to another level of government have nothing to do with this.

Ummmmm.......huh? What the heck are you talking about?

When a tyrannical government removes the right of the people to govern, they are by definition depriving the people of their freedom.

By your definition, everybody in the world is "free", including the people of NK, and China.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

That's not what we're talking about. If the U.S. ceases to have a federal system, so that we have a unitary government and the states are subordinate appendages of the federal government, that doesn't mean we have a tyranny. France has a similar system. France is not a tyranny. It's all about the relationship of the individual to government -- NOT about relationships between lower and higher levels of government.

Again gotta disagree with you on this not limiting freedom, you kinda proved my point with what you said about "subordinate appendages". That's actually an excellent way to describe it. If the term "subordinate appendage" doesn't smack of limited freedom, nothing does.

Are you saying France has more freedom than the USA?

Are you in favor of the above mentioned form of government?

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

I am not the state of California. If the state of California becomes a subordinate appendage, that does not affect MY freedom in any way, shape or form, as long as I continue to have a voice/vote at both the local and national level.

I said only that France is not a tyranny. The USA is not a tyranny, either.

I'm neither in favor of it nor against it. It's just a different way of organizing things than federalism.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 Jefferson and Madison penned resolutions that gave these States the right to declare that if a federal law was deemed unconstitutional by the State, the law was nullified and would not be enforced within that state. This was an attempt to keep a balance of power because if the Federal Supreme Court, who was part of the Federal Government, had the final word on law, what prevented them from always ruling on the side of the Federal Government? What recourse did the States have to defend themselves from unjust Federal Law?

Our country's history has proven what our founders feared, the Federal Government will seek to extract power wherever and whenever possible. If the States don't draw a line in the sand we might one day have no State to call home.

__________________
You do realize you are arguing with a mindless vegetable, don't you?

Members of the House of Representatives do not represent any geographical region or area. They are elected by and represent the PEOPLE.

You just don't give up, do you?

More bs.

They absolutely represent the people..........of a specific geographical area, that's how it works. Look it up.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

Your first sentence is absolutely accurate, but then you strayed.

The Constitution itself does not tell us WHO or WHAT ENTITY should be the final arbiter of whether a law was or was not allowable under the Constitution. Many people thought that determining Constitutionality was the President's responsibility, and that was why he had been given the authority to veto such laws. Others argued that the states should be able to determine Constitutionality. In secretly writing the resolutions passed by Kentucky and Virginia, Jefferson and Madison endorsed this view, and Jefferson went farther by saying that the state, if not satisfied, had a right to secede. The two resolutions were prompted by the passage, under President Adams, of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which were rightly regarded as an attempt to suppress and silence supporters of Thomas Jefferson and to assure the re-election of President Adams. But Jefferson's "conversion" to this rather extreme position must be seen within its proper political context--a few years later, when he was President, Jefferson denied the same claims when expressed by New Englanders in response to his embargo (see "The Chesapeake Affair"), and Madison certainly denied the similar claims of the Hartford Convention of 1814.

In any case, the argument was ultimately decided in 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion in Marbury v. Madison in which he asserted the right of the Supreme Court to adjudge Constitutionality. When Jefferson chose not to challenge the ruling, a precedent was established--which still is in effect today.

countryboy, if there are no people in an area, how many representatives will come from that geographical region?

The matter of apportionment by geographical area is one of convenience. The representatives are not allotted because there is so much land, but in direct proportion to the number of people. That is why Alaska, far the largest state, does not have the most representatives.

I will suggest that you..."look it up."

I have previously pointed out that you seem unwilling to even attempt to understand anything which contradicted your preconceptions. You appear determined to demonstrate that again and again.

Unlike the ideas of the president doing so, that one is specifically voided by the language of the Constitution itself:

Article VI.

There is no possible logical construction of that language that permits nullification by the states. It specifically asserts that a state law or even a state constitution has no standing when it conflicts with federal law.

I was not arguing in favor of that position, merely stating the arguments that were current at the time. Some men, even men as smart as Jefferson or as familiar with the Constitution as Madison, advanced that arguments.