Laws mean what they say & intended to be

How should the U.S. Constitution be interpreted? Can the judiciary be trusted to interpret correctly? What does the constitution say about nullifying federal laws?

Answers include interpreting based on text & original pattern of intent. But how could the constitution be interpreted? Based on historical analysis, I can conclude the framers intent was to restrict the federal government to enumerated powers while the 10th amendment clearly states everything else not delegated to federal government NOR prohibited by the states rest within state/local governments as well as the people.

How has the US Supreme Court ruled in regards to this? Certainly the judiciary hasn't been of much help & no branch in the federal government was trustworthy enough to correct such constitutional violations. Having the supreme court be final dictorium on law is like having one branch of a corporation be the arbitraitor in a suit brought against another branch.

Who decides the  constitutionality of something? The U.S. Constitution mentions ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about final arbitration, leaving that up to the states/people as reinforced by the 10th amendment. The US Supreme Court only asserted in Madbury vs. Madison that it had the power to eliminate laws of congress found to be unconstitutional. They did not declare themselves final masters of laws. Subsequent rulings relating to Congressional powers relates to defining what the constitution means with some blemishes. The Marshall court played a pivotal role in upholding US National Bank & defining the true definition of Commerce Clause in Odgens vs. Gibbons. Odgen vs. Gibbons struck down a New York law granting exclusive steamboat rights for intrastate commerce. It was struck down in order to make way for reinforcing the federal government's role in maintaining a unified free trade zone amongst U.S. states.

The Commerce Clause evolved to restrict individual behavior thanks to judicial activism. Regulate meant to make regular such as unifying trade boundaries between states. Odgen vs. Gibbons was a great example of the true intent of the commerce clause because it stated New York could not allow monopolies of intrastate commerce over interstate. Other Commerce Clauses favoring the federal government are false unless they are in line with Odgens vs. gibbons precedent of making commerce regular.

Think about this now. The constitution has provision to amend it and the only successfully ammended part restricting individual behavior(exception of slavery) is 18th amendment federalizing alcohol prohibition, which would be repealed in 1933 after nearly 14 years. there were a few others such as regulation of child labor but only one prohibition/regulation general in nature passed as a constitutional amendment. There is no federal power to regulate labor, firearms, drugs, sexual practices, education, health care, etc. meaning for examples what Obama was pushing for his state of the Union Address including gun control, education, minimum wage, and climate change are all unconstitutional, even if they do have good intentions. However, neither are examples of reasons for federal intervention.

The Framers were not entirely pragmatic but were smart enough to outline the powers of the federal government in a way it could be as limited to necessary functions states were not usually accustomed to. The framers also distinguished with what the states couldn't do in article one, section 10 such as declaring war, bills of attainer, letters of marque, ex post facto, payment in anything other than gold/silver tonnage. If you've been told state courts cannot declare certain actions of the federal government unconstitutional, then article one, section 10 and the 10th amendment state otherwise as there is nothing in article one, section 10 or article four that prohibit states from restricting the actions of the federal government as the 10th amendment reinforces this. For example, Missouri & Texas are planning to nullify ALL federal gun control laws and Virginia is planning to make Gold legal tender. There is nowhere in the constitution that the federal government can have veto power over the states unless the states are clearly prohibited under the constitution from doing so.

Madbury vs. Madison in 1803 was the most landmark supreme court case ruling the Supreme Court has the power under article III of judicial review. But do the courts truly under article III have the near absolute power to judicial review? The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in 1803 that it had final say on legal matters. Article III blueprints the judiciary and it's authority. Congress has the power to set jurisdiction of the federal judiciary wheres the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is stated in article III. The federal judiciary is overinvolved in state matters ranging from abortion to crime. Perhaps an infamous case in 1973 Roe vs. Wade with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 7-2 a woman had a right to obtain an abortion, completely overriding state powers to protect the unborn, had been the case in nearly every U.S. state for over 150 years. Lawrence vs. Texas in 2003 legalized sodomy by consenting adults(even homosexual couples) despite there being no historical or constitutional basis of such a ruling. The 14th amendment has been abused to strike down state laws that had been acceptable close to the founding era.

Concluding line here is the constitution means what it says & it does not mention the federal government having the power to override state laws unless states are specifically prohibited from doing so in the constitution. why do you think the framers made it more specific in article one, section 10 of what the states couldn't do vs. what the federal government could do in article one section 8? My analysis says this so as not to be confused with the federal government abusing it's power over the states and people while reinforcing what's important the states shouldn't end up doing such as declaring war for example. For example this means Texas can override federal gun control laws but cannot declare war on Mexico. Plus, if states are prohibited from using anything but gold/silver as legal tender, why is the U.S. Dollar forced on as a fiat currency?