Sure it does. Say for instance congress pass a law that says they can detain indefinitely if you are declared a drug dealer as it is a threat to national security even if you are an American citizen. The courts have now ability to determine whether something constitutional and the president agrees. Now I can’t sue saying my constitutional rights are be violated because the courts can only settle the dispute based on the law as written. There fore indefinite jail it is.

You are correct. That said the feds have a considerable amount of influence and can leverage it. A clear message goes a long way. Or they can always nudge with the purse strings. Just like the drinking age of 21 is not a federal law all 50 states adopted it because it was either adopt it or no interstate money for you.

Yes the fed has acquired much power via it's ability to tax and redistribute revenues... with strings attached. States acquiesced along the way to keep their share of the tax pie.

Thats not how the system works. The Court does not have the authority to remove a law, they can, when you sue say that the law violates the Constitution and therefore you must be freed. They are ruling on the merits of the individual case as it pertains to the parties involved. There is a difference there. The Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land.

I am not arguing whether or not it is a good idea for the Supreme Court to have judicial review. I am simply stating that the Constitution does not grant that authority to the Court. It does not matter whether it is good or makes things better. The Court cannot grant itself powers under the Constitution. Many of the Constitutional overreaches by government are a direct result of the Court granting itself power.

When you allow the Court to usurp powers not granted to it, you move from a nation governed by laws to one governed by men.

Speaking on topic, UAL is moving some white collar jobs to India. Remote work might be a sign of the future, but it’ll be more remote than you might like.

https://twitter.com/winglets747/stat...121897474?s=21

Agreed. The States have been an active part of the enlargement of the Federal government. Even more so after the 16th Amendment created a new and larger revenue stream for the Fed, which the States could tap into, without directly taxing their own people.

Again when the SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional truthfully they only said in that case. The reason it is said that a law is struck down in now that they have ruled on it the lower courts are obligated to rule the same way. So in my example the law saying drug dealers can be held without trail stands but is effectively invalidated because if another agency tries it they will lose too. So it becomes a waste of time and money.

No on is disputing this. But one doesn't need to "interpret" the Constitution in order to decide if an action fits within it. The document means exactly what it meant at the time it was written down.

So only militias can own muskets then?

A well regulated (well trained in the language of the day) militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where is there any mention of muskets and where is there any language in that simple and elegant passage restricting ownership to militia members?