But, however, and also in any case . . . irrespective of the idiocy of this decision, the intervention of the Supremes in this case was a power grab of immense importance. The writers of the Constitution, and those who critiqued each phrase of it for unsuspected meaning, denied Congress the power to veto the acts of state legislatures. Nobody ever said that the Judicial– the least accountable branch of the government– would have veto power over those very same bodies. If they had meant to, they would have said it. But with this latest unanswered attack, the U.S. government moved a giant step closer to being a national government, rather than a federal one.

And now, we come to Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee. As with most legal folderol, it is rather involved, not to say turgid. And also deliberately abstruse. A simplified version of it goes something like this: During the Revolutionary War, Virginia had passed laws that allowed the property of British Loyalists to be confiscated. The question was whether subsequent treaties between the U.S. and Britain meant Virginia had to give the properties back. Virginia’s highest court ruled that it didn’t.

The Supremes, citing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which said they could hear appeals of federal questions from the states’ top courts, in essence, said, "Send us your records, boys. We want to take a look at that thing."

To which the Virginia court replied, "We checked the Constitution and you don’t have any say-so over us. So, buzz off." Or words to that effect.

I should have mentioned that the properties in question belonged to a large company that speculated in land, two of whose major shareholders were John Marshall and his brother. This might have a bearing on the case. Marshall evidentially thought the same thing, because he recused himself. But not to worry: Justice Joseph Story was a strong Marshall ally.

Justice Story wrote that there must be one superintending authority to ensure that the law was applied the same way throughout the Union. He reasoned that Article III established that states could be brought before federal courts, in some cases, so Virginia had to come across.

This argument had been used earlier (Chisholm v. Georgia) and the people had instantly fixed it by adopting the Eleventh Amendment, which limited the Supremes to certain types of jurisdictions, of which the Virginia thing was not one of them. And on top of that, state judges were required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which they were doing. In short, it was the Supreme Court that was violating the Constitution, not Virginia.