Okay, that's it. All of you monkeys off of my Goddamn planet.

[Doktor Howl]

I guess this is where I'm a bit concerned. The Supremacy Clause you are referring to was the same one that rejected Ableman v. Booth, in that it said since federal law supported US Marshall apprehending fugitive slaves, the state was not allowed to interfere. Now, I will grant that it is a superb argument that the provision in the Voting Rights Act was constitutional (and one I will be happy to use in support of it, as I had said before that I support it from a personal standpoint), but I think this case is an example of when the opposite is at play: when a law can be created as constitutional, but morally repugnant.

You either have a constitution or you don't.  Applying it only on things you like is sort of the opposite of a constitution.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I guess this is where I'm a bit concerned. The Supremacy Clause you are referring to was the same one that rejected Ableman v. Booth, in that it said since federal law supported US Marshall apprehending fugitive slaves, the state was not allowed to interfere. Now, I will grant that it is a superb argument that the provision in the Voting Rights Act was constitutional (and one I will be happy to use in support of it, as I had said before that I support it from a personal standpoint), but I think this case is an example of when the opposite is at play: when a law can be created as constitutional, but morally repugnant.

You either have a constitution or you don't.  Applying it only on things you like is sort of the opposite of a constitution.

This, this, this, this, THIS.