A Supreme Court decision that concessions of this sort were unconstitutional would have taken them off the table and actually increased the effective sovereignty of elected officials.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If a radical devolution of powers was possible, it would have been done before. The assumption of states' rights is gone. There's no support for it in the Supreme Court and there's no support for it in public opinion.
The Founding Fathers provided a way to reverse unpopular Supreme Court decisions: a constitutional amendment.
That the decision is taken away from the voters, and as in 2000 turned over to the lawyers and the courts.
While Congress can't overturn the Supreme Court, we can provide carrots and sticks to prevent local governments from unfairly taking property from landowners.
Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so.
A new constitution should be more amendable. A needlessly confusing system of courts should be altered to produce an arrangement that would be simple, responsible, and less awkward.
I cannot believe that the American people and the people they elected would use the Constitution to stifle any group's rights.
I believe the two biggest mistakes made by the Founders were giving Federal judges life-time appointments and permitting them to be confirmed without the agreement of two-thirds of the members of the United States Senate.
A federal judge did as he was supposed to do and upheld the Constitution. We should be thankful that we have judiciary that will do that.
Specifically, the reservation of sovereignty to the people of the states in matters not governed by federal law is constitutionally defined and permanently enshrined in the 10th Amendment.
No opposing quotes found.