Posted by djf on October 04, 1998 at 01:16:47:
In Reply to: Some early observations posted by djf on October 03, 1998 at 21:44:33:
Story presents one of the most cogent and powerful interpretations of the supremacy clause I have seen. He argues that the Constitution would be voided or weakened if each state were able to apply it's own interpretation to the document. (24 states at the time he wrote it). The supremacy cluse is there, with that in mind, so that the federal government could put to rest varying interpretations. So, according to him, it was not so much to SET policy, as to make uniform the policy, precisely as intended with uniforming the naturalization and bankruptcy proceedings. The federal role is as an arbitrator, little more.
Of course, at the time it was written, the states were considerably more autonomous than today, and a real secession by one or more was a possibility, so it was in the best interest to yield to states rights.