In reply to respone on 'That Sweet Lady of Liberty' posted on FMNN

Had written an article posted on 3/20/2006 at Free Market News Network titled 'That Sweet Lady of Liberty'.
.
There was a comment left by Leif Rakur in reply to the article. Which is as follows;
.
"Writing of the Second Amendment, you say that "the proper use of federal authority, would be to enforce that Right" against "Constitutionally repugnant local/state law." However, David, state and local governments are under no legal obligation to even acknowledge the existence of the Second Amendmenmt when legislating. The U.S. Supreme Court has always held that the Second Amendment is a restraint against federal legislation only, not against that of state and local governments."
.
It is my Civic DUTY to inform Leif of any misconception held, concerning the True Law of the land. My response follows;
.
Hello,
Leif Rakur - On the contrary. The United States Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land PERIOD:
.
This FACT is reinforced HERE;
.
United States v. Burr - 25 Fed. Cas. 55, no. 14,693 C.C.D.Va. 1807 Marshall, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
.
"But in regard to an act of assembly, which is found to be in collision with the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, I take the duty of the judiciary to be exactly the reverse. By becoming parties to the federal constitution, the states have agreed to several limitations of their individual sovereignty, to enforce which, it was thought to be absolutely necessary to prevent them from giving effect to laws in violation of those limitations, through the instrumentality of their own judges. Accordingly, it is declared in the fifth article and second section of the federal constitution, that "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be BOUND thereby; any thing in the laws or constitution of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
.
And HERE;
.
Eakins v. Raub 12 Serg. & Rawle 330 Pa. 1825
.
"This is an express grant of a political power, and it is conclusive to show that no law of inferior obligation, as every state law must necessarily be, can be executed at the expense of the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It may be said, these are to furnish a rule only when there is no state provision on the subject. But, in that view, they could with no propriety be called supreme; for supremacy is a relative term, and cannot be predicated of a thing which exists separately and alone: and this law, which is called supreme, would change its character and become subordinate as soon as it should be found in conflict with a state law. But the judges are to be bound by the federal constitution and laws, notwithstanding any thing in the constitution or laws of the particular state to the contrary. If, then, a state were to declare the laws of the United States not to be obligatory on her judges, such an act would unquestionably be void; for it will not be pretended, that any member of the union can dispense with the obligation of the federal constitution; and, if it cannot be done directly, and by a general declaratory law, neither can it indirectly, and by by-laws dispensing with it in particular cases. This, therefore, is an express grant of the power, and would be sufficient for the purposes of the argument; but it is not all.
.
By the third article and second section, appellate jurisdiction of all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, is reserved to the federal judiciary, under such regulations as congress may prescribe; and, in execution of this provision, congress has prescribed regulations for removing into the Supreme Court of the United States, all causes decided by the highest court of judicature of any state, which involve the construction of the constitution, or of any law or treaty of the United States. This is another guard against infraction of the limitations imposed on state sovereignty, and one which is extremely efficient in practice; for reversals of decisions in favour of the constitutionality of acts of assembly, have been frequent on writs of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
.
Now, a reversal implies that it was not only the right, but the duty of the inferior court to decide otherwise; for where there is but one way of deciding, there can be no error. But what beneficial result would there be produced by the decision of a state court in favour of a state law palpably unconstitutional? The injured party would have the judgment reversed by the court in the last resort, and the cause would come back with a mandate to decide differently, which the state court dare not disobey; so that nothing would eventually be gained by the party claiming under the law of the state, but, on the contrary, he would be burdened with additional costs. I grant, however, that the state judiciary ought not to exercise the power except in cases free from all doubt, because, as a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States lies to correct an error only in favour of the constitutionality of the state law, an error in deciding against it would be irremediable. Anticipating those who think they perceive in this, exactly what I have censured in those who assume the existence of the same power in respect to laws that are repugnant to the constitution of the state, but restrict the exercise of it to clear cases, I briefly remark that the instances are not parallel; an error in deciding against the validity of the law, being irreparable in the one, and not so in the other.
.
Unless, then, the respective states are not bound by the engagement, which they have contracted by becoming parties to the constitution of the United States, they are precluded from denying either the right or the duty of their judges, to declare their laws void when they are repugnant to that constitution.
.
The preceding inquiry may perhaps appear foreign to the point immediately before the court; but, as the act of 1815 may be thought repugnant to the constitution of the state, an examination of the powers of the judiciary, became not only proper but necessary.
.
Then, laying the constitution of the state out of the case, what restriction on state sovereignty is violated by at once repealing any of the saving clauses in the statute of limitations? Those restrictions are contained in the first article and tenth section of the constitution of the United States..."
.
Leif, just because laws have been perversed or ignored, does not provide just cause for abandonment of them. In fact, it should be a grave cause for concern by every American Citizen! It is OUR Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights!

The Constitution of The United States of America IS the Supreme Law of The Land. In addition to that, the People are confirmed as being the "Ultimate Legitimate Authority" of OUR U.S. Constitution, as indicated in the Federalist Papers. The Federalist bears weight and substance, in that, it was the method employed by the Framers, of selling the idea of a Constituted Federal Republican system of government to We The People. It is the unequivocal RIGHT of EVERY U.S. citizen to Keep and Bear Arms. And that RIGHT was NEVER supposed to be Infringed upon - by ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Anything REPUGNANT to OUR CONSTITUTION is NULL and VOID! Of course, that is IF THE COURTS WERE WORKING AS THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO.
.
The INTENDED system is THE TRUE system, ANYTHING CONTRARY to it, is PERVERSION!