what agreement argued that states had the right to judge whether federal laws agreed with the consitution?
964750
It was agreed that States would be able to keep their rights as "Sovereign" States, even though owned by the Nation.  The agreement was between an arguement from the Virginia plan and the New Jersey Plan.\n\nEver since the Colonies arose, each state had their right to trade within' other states, and their systems of law all different at least slightly...  States have their right to judge upon their own belief system because the federal law really only pertains to the Supreme Court, not other smaller, less significant courts.\n\nFor example, you can get away with piracy - meaning the copying of music and distribution (Illegally) - in a small court, or state court...  But in front of the Supreme Court, Federal law disallows the federal judge to make any judgement which does not agree with Federal Law.\n\nThis is also why Federal Judges are the highest number of impeached officers in the Government.  They sometimes make bad judgements which do not agree with Federal Law.
450813
Furman V. Georgia was a Supreme Court case in 1972. The ruling was requiring some consistency when giving out death penalty decisions. I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for but go to the website below, it has a lot of good information for any report you may need it for.\nHope it helps!
1084363
A little note on the particulars of lawmaking and judgments (which are NOT the same).  The creation of laws is done by the legislative branch (ie. Congress or Administrative Agencies - whose legitimacy can be debated as well).  The interpretation of laws is done by the Judicial Branch (ie. judges, ultimately the Supreme Court).  \n\nThere are several types of law in the United States, which is followed from the ancestors from England...Common Law, Natural Law, positive Law, Administrative Law, Ordinances, State Law,  and Constitutional Law.  Most people have no idea how these all fit together.  BASICALLY....\n\nWhen an entity (usually a person) appeals a case to the United States Supreme Court, and it is accepted for review by the Court, the parties are arguing points of law, not whether something happened or not.  In reviewing a case, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are supposed to use above all else for their considerations the United States Constitution - the SUPREME law of this land.  (This is how if something is found unconstitutional, the case is over becuase it is by nature illegal.)  \n\nThe Constitution however is viewed through the lenses of human eyes that have had experiences and posses hidden motives.  These are what move a Justice to decide one or another.  \n\n(In regards to a precedent....this applies to Common Law only, which is the lowest forms of law in this country.  All that a precedent is, is a way another Justice at some level decided in a particular region.  That is, if an Alabama judge decided a case for a certain reason...other Alabama judges would be expected to find the same decision in similar cases.  This precedent would not at all apply to courts in Colorado or Maine or...any other state.  Precedents are most similar to ordinances - "don't do that because we have realized it causes harm to many.")
814576
well I think they already had seperate votes but the 10th amendment to the consitution (added as part of the bill of rights) gives Any power that is not specifically granted to the federal government and that doesn't directly prohibit the states from using it, can be used by state government and the people.
222824
Because Federal Law is above state law.  States can not create laws that conflict with the constitution.
752913
The Democratic-Republicans (anti-Federalists) believed in State's Rights.  They had the better view.
802819
There isn't enough space suggest you search the net.  The Bill Of Rights made ratification of the Constitution possible and even so their were states that were hesitate
606078
There wasn't anyone of any importance really that didn't favor State's rights over the rights of a Federal Gov't.\n\nDo you know the reason for the Constitution, what it does? Most people haven't read it since High School, if then. It only grants one right to the people, and is not about us, although it was designed to protect us against big Federal Gov't. The whole thing is laid out to limit the powers of the Federal Gov't. It is the only lawful authority the Federal Gov't has. Read the Consitution as the sight in Sources.\n\nDid you know that our Constitution almost didn't get signed into action? Do you know what our Forefathers feared most? They did not fear Britian or India or China or Spain or the Dutch, or all of them together. They feared that the Federal Gov't they were authorizing would gain more power than any one or all States. So they broke our Gov't into three branches, and spelled out the only authority of our Federal Gov't. \n\nBut it still almost didn't get signed. The only way they were able to get enough votes, was if they added the clause of seccession. If any state ever wanted to, they could withdraw from the Union.\n\nEveryone blames the South for the Civil War, but all they were trying to do was lawfully withdraw from the Union, along with some northern states. Lincoln went to war to settle the argument. There were a lot bigger issues at stake than slavery. It was about Federal control over the STates.\n\nThe Contitution got signed, but we didn't enforce it. There was nobody to police the police. And you can bet, when they added the Amendments to the Constitution, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," was there for one reason: politicians only fear two things: public opinion and guns.
489805
Certainly within the Founders True Intent of the Constitution, States rights were recognized.  With the Union federal government winning of the civil war and the application of the 1868 14th Amendment (justified in Texas v. White [1869] since it never met Constitutional ratification requirements), States came under the power of the federal government and States rights began to diminish.  \n\nThrough the years the federal government has increasingly intruded into what the Founders would have considered as the Constitutional territory of the States.  One of the primary roles of the States (prior to the Civil war) was to protect the rights of its citizens relative to actions of the federal government through an action termed State Nullification.  In this function a single State legislature could decide that federal action was not Constitutional and nullify it in that single State.  \n\nTo get this back where it once was, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified noting the Sovereign role of the States and their power to nullify federal action.
979339
Judges were given the right to overturn laws by the United States Constitution, which was ratified by the states, so the people have essentially agreed to give judges the right. They could theoretically agree later to remove that right.
831608
The Missouri Compromise, also called the Compromise of 1820, was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery for all new states north of the 36°30' line, or the border of the Arkansas territory (excluding Missouri). Prior to the agreement, the House of Representatives had refused to accept this boundary and a conference committee was appointed. The United States Senate refused to concur in the amendment, and the whole measure was lost. During the following session (1819-1820), the House passed a similar bill with an amendment introduced on January 26, 1820 by John W. Taylor of New York allowing Missouri into the union as a slave state. In the meantime, the question had been complicated by the admission in December of Alabama, a slave state (the number of slave and free states now becoming equal), and by the passage through the House (January 3, 1820) of a bill to admit Maine as a free state.
184490
Assuming you mean in the hinie (thanks Yahoo filter), the 2001 US Supreme Court case of Lawrence vs. Texas makes it your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bugger somebody.  Though they couldn't point to the specific constitutional phrase...\n\nWonder what Jefferson and Madison, et al, would have thought about that?
1009831
It has already been decided by the states.\nBack when country was founded, what few states there were ratified the Constitution and the first amendment.\n\nThe Constitution can be revised by an amendment, which is voted for by state Representatives, they represent their states.\n\nshould the bill have gone through the amendment to the Constitution would have to be ratified by the states themselves rather than Representatives.\n\nthere through representation the states or rather the people have spoken.\n\nThe supreme court does its job interpret if a law infringes on the Constitution, and flag burning laws do infringe.\n\n\nI know what your getting at by state by state but the matter is a constitutional first amendment question and laws passed on the state level will eventually reach the courts to be tested against the Constitution...sorry.\n\nThe state has a remedy in the courts, and its own legislative meaning why not legislate that all flags be made from fire proof materials.
203112
That last answer was highly cynical. They have exclusive jurisdiction in cases where federal statutes or the constitution say they have exclusive jurisdiction. For example, Congress has given federal courts the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide bankruptcy cases. \n\nIn many types of cases which federal courts may hear, there is concurrent jurisdiction with state courts.\n\nThe site mentioned above is very helpful.
250216
is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute which it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court— to overrule the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.
37895
There is no specific right to privacy granted in the constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is implicit in the "penumbras" of the various amendments. Concurring opinions referred to the ninth amendment which says that rights not explicitly given in the constitution to the people are not to be denied them as well as the 4th and 5th amendment requirements of due process. The main case establishing this precedent was Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a law banning contraceptives.
181146
The decision was based on the 14th amendment.  The case was Afroyim vs. Rusk and details can be found at:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk