Here's a map of California's Congressional districts, they cover the entire state. Yet, I know for a fact, there are many rugged wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada mountain range,which contain no people whatsoever. Yet they are still within the boundaries of various Congressional districts. Hmmmmm............

Here's a map of the Congressional districts for your state. Hmmmm, sure looks like specific geographical boundaries to me, even if they are only for "convenience"

Are you saying that Representative Roe can simply waltz into District 4, and tell Representative Davis to take a hike?

You seem to have an affinity for semantics. I have a feeling if I said the sky is blue, you would lecture me about the composition of the atmosphere, and how the sky is definitely not blue.

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

The fact that all Congressional districts are located within the boundaries of single states does not change the fact that the House does not represent the states, but the people. Each Representative is elected by the people of his/her district, which has no connection with any state beyond the fact of geographical location. This was part of the compromise that allowed the Constitution to be ratified. The House is the democratic part of the original U.S. Government; the rest of the government is aristocratic or elitist.

Originally, the Senate did represent the states, since Senators were elected by the state legislatures. Today, Senators represent the people of the states, not the states themselves. Those two are not identical; "the state" refers to the state government, which originally chose Senators, but no longer does.

Your maps tell us how the two states have chosen to apportion the representatives who will serve the people of their state. In no instance does any member of Congress represent a geographical area--they represent the people, and only the people. You claim that you want to force the federal government to abide by the terms of the Constitution of the United States. I have no objection to that. However, I DO OBJECT to anyone who wants to selectively make their own rules and use them to replace other parts of the Constitution. Our dispute here began when I asserted that the members of Congress REPRESENT THE PEOPLE--THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE STATES. You took me to task for that assertion, even though it is ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE and entirely in keeping with the wording of the Constitution itself.

Your example one one representative walking into another district and telling that district's representative to "take a hike" is simply an absurdity, and I think that you are intelligent enough to know why it cannot be done. You also are intelligent enough to know that I never suggested anything of the sort, so it is puzzling to see you insert such a thing into this conversation. It lends weight to the belief that you are not a knowledgeable poster, a serious poster, or an honest debater. In short, it does you no credit.

You accuse me of "having an affinity for semantics." I claim only that THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE READ AS IT IS--AND THAT IT MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAYS. If you have a problem with that, I'm afraid that you'll just have to live with it.

The quote that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is true. What you fail to see is that the founders never intended the federal government to have more power than the states. They actually intended the states to have more power than the federal government. Consider:

The powers of the federal government are few while the powers of the states are numerous. The founders would have been shocked by any notion that the states should be disbanded and that the federal government should absorb all their power. Firstly, it flies smack in the face of the Constitution which limits the powers of the federal government and reserves all powers not granted to it to the states respectively and to the people. Second, it vests way too much power in the federal government. I don't care how benevolent one thinks the federal government would be, to grant the federal government that level of power is unconstitutional and dangerous.

You know TheHighForester, what you say about the representatives being chosen by the people is true but you overlook the fact that originally Senators were chosen by the state legislatures and were thus representatives of the states. The founders intended the House to represent the people and the Senate to represent the states. Clearly, the founders supported federalism and many were quite adamant about the dangers of a federal government that had too much power. I'm not even sure that you can argue that the Constitution increased the federal power vs. the Articles of Confederation all that much. Madison said:

Personally, although I think it is nice to be able to vote for Senators I favor a return to the original approach the founders used. I think that it would help protect against the blatant power grabs that the federal government is currently involved in.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

What I fail to see is the relevance of yet another straw-man to the discussion. We are currently discussing whether the states have the right to nullify federal laws within their borders. The clear language of the Constitution says no. Whether the federal or the state government is overall more powerful has nothing to do with that question at all.

Why do some people go around quoting Madison as if he were the only person who had anything to do with the Constitution? It was a joint undertaking by a great many men, as I recall.

I didn't overlook that at all. If you thumb back through the thread, you will find that detailed in one of my earliest posts. The fact that I cited the Constitution accurately hasn't made a bit of difference to those who were predisposed to think of members of the House as representing states.

Since I said something different from what they fervently believed, they now attack me on any specious grounds they can dredge up. Their attitudes are the product of two things: (1) an inadequate knowledge of the Constitution; and (2) a failure to learn table manners when they were young.

The quotes are actually from Federalist papers written by Madison.

If the federal government oversteps it's bounds the states do have a right to object and fight it.

The federal government is not authorized to exceed its specific delegated powers and I don't blame the states for opposing it when it does.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

Another straw man. Nobody has said anything to the contrary. What we HAVE said, is that states don't have the right to pass laws making federal law void within their borders. Do you deny this?

Of course not; on the other hand, in your time here you have often asserted your own opinions on things as if they were self-evident fact, and that's the case here, too. Nobody is going to disagree that the federal government isn't authorized to "exceed its specific delegated powers," but your judgment as to what those powers and limits are is somewhat eccentric, and plenty of us are going to disagree with that.

Nor is anyone going to disagree that the states (and any individual, for that matter) has a right to "oppose" federal government actions they disagree with. That's called free speech and the right to vote. But it doesn't mean that the states have the authority to nullify federal laws within their borders. They don't.

This whole paragraph can be summed up in one statement. "It's good to be king."

There is no such thing as ultimately decided there is only temporary opinion.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

You're right. Federal law is supreme...as long as they are laws that fall under their authority. So as long as the law doesn't step beyond the limits imposed on them then it's the end all.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

The "temporary opinion" has gone essentially unchallenged for 206 years now. And I should point out that neither Jefferson nor Madison actually got to be "king."

Thanks for your well-reasoned contribution to the discussion.

Madison is generally called the "Father" of the Constitution. He wrote the vast majority of the Federalist Papers. He is, as you say, one among many but his voice is naturally given great weight.

That being said, it must be understood that the increasing Federalism and centralization of power in the US is the result of broad and worldwide historical trends which can simply not be denied. Many other of the FF original intentions have surrendered to this. A standing army, somehow the darling of every 'strict constructionist' I've ever met, was absolute anathema to the FF; but we probably wouldn't have survived the latter 19thc without one and certainly not far into the 20th. The FF were a supremely august group combining all that is good and right among humanity, unique, I believe, in the history of the world. And it is that world itself that is the only thing the instrument they created must and should bow to. The Constitution is great, but History is supreme.

True, but it is not up to the States to decide this.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

They didn't get to be king?!?!?! Your inability to see the point behind the statement uncuts your supposed "intellect". If you can't even understand that I didn't literally mean king then how can you understand anything else? Funny how you can be so condescending to others.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

If not the states then no other can do it. You agreed but then, basically, contradicted the agreement. At least that's how it appears.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Yes, but to say that the states have the say-so on whether those laws do transgress those limits is to void the supreme law of the land clause altogether, for all practical purposes. That clause implies that the decision does NOT rest with the states.

If you want to look at who has the authority to determine constitutionality, look for the teeth. Who has the power to make such decisions stick? The president does, but only to a very limited degree: if a bill comes across his desk, and he judges it to be unconstitutional, he can veto it on that (or any other) grounds. This is limited, though, because Congress can override a veto. Congress itself can make that decision when debating legislation -- but its decision is not final. (Unless it decides in the negative, and refuses to pass laws. Then it's final, unless a later Congress reconsiders.)

The real teeth are possessed by the Supreme Court. Being empowered to try all cases under federal law and the Constitution, either directly or on appeal, and authorized to make decisions of law as well as fact, the Court can -- in practice -- decide that a law is unconstitutional, and there is no authority that can overrule that decision. So even though the Constitution doesn't spell out specifically in so many words that the Court has the power of judicial review, the power is granted in practice, and that's that.