US Supreme Court has no right to impose law states outside Feds Constitutional Authority, why do they let them?

Exactly! We all want our freedoms, and we can only have them by allowing others their freedoms. We attempt to take theirs, they attempt to take ours, and pretty soon it's all controlled by a central authority and that never ends well for individual rights, not even the right to be left alone. Who wants government imposed crap and bureaucracy in their face all day every day? No one wants it.

A huge part of the government expansion is based on the power to regulate inter-state trade and by later changes to the Constitution such as an income tax. Many of the expansions are understandable extensions and some are a very big stretch of definitions. The Interstates were based on both the requirement to protect (the military) and then regulating inter-state trade. The official title of the interstate system include the word "defense" and was proposed as a method of moving military assets in times of an emergency/war based on the German autobahn's Americans saw after World War Two.. The regulation of trade between the states was a secondary feature. Government expansion has been very steady since the American Civil War and greatly accelerated after the Great Depression.

While it is impossible to respond with specifics to a general rant, such as this, I will point out one thing about the Constitution and the Supreme Court:

The Constitution includes the Supremacy Clause, which states that Federal laws (including the Constitution itself, of course, but also federal legislation and properly ratified international treaties) are Supreme to State laws. While the Constitution prevents the Federal government and the Supreme Court from interfering with the domain of the States except, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret whether or not that happened in a particular instance. A State may disagree, claiming that in a particular instance, a law oversteps into the State's domain. The State may sue to block enforcement. The Supreme Court may then overrule the State. If the State thinks they can then ignore the Supreme Court, since their State law says the Supreme Court had no authority, the Supreme Court will overrule them, since the Supreme Court interprets the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and decides when it does and does not apply.

Note, though, that routinely the Supreme Court will declare that a particular case does not present a federal question and relegate it to the relevant State to decide. In those cases, different States may, and often do, come to their own conclusions. This happens much more often than you probably realize.

When the Supreme Court counters the Constitution they are outside of their jourisdiction and their judgement is illegal and void, that is very true. The Constitution is the leading legal authority in the USA, not the Supreme court which was not created to make law, but uphold the law. Their roll as interperators doesn't give them card blache to change the Constitution. There is a legal process for changing the Constitution, and it has nothing to do with the courts. That is not their job or their roll, nor do they have legal authority to do it.

"The states long ago surrendered their sovereignty, and they are now junkies on federal monies, which they need for schools, roads, Medicaid, and much else. If the citizens are now wards of the federal government, then the states long since preceded them in that sorry servitude."

This country has drifted so far from it's constitutional framework, a total economic collapse or full revolution will be required to facilitate a return to being the constitutional republic it once was. The good news is that both are actually plausible at this time.

This is a great example of how speech can generate hatred and some nut case gets fired up and attacks our government. There is no need to call our democratically elected officials "hit men". This is rhetoric that we do not need. You can disagree all you want but skip the demonizing.

By the way, I guess according to you we should have passports for entering ever state because their laws could be totally different. The southern states would still be slave owning states, etc. etc.

Good Luck with that.

there is not any distinction. the two communities are/have been being discriminated against thoroughly unreasonably. that's unconstitutional (and easily unfair) to disclaim specific communities the rights granted to different equivalent communities. Likewise, to characteristic such denial to the language of a shape might (in my unschooled opinion) fly quickly interior the face of this form of checklist it fairly is designed to grant equivalent rights to all. The California surprising court acted thoroughly interior of its bounds with the aid of astonishing down an unconstitutional ban, the two in 1948 and in 2008.

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

There is no "outside of their jurisdiction".