> it wasn't relevant to the states for some time. This is pretty much my point, the influence of the Constitution has been increasing over time, not decreasing

> it wasn't relevant to the states for some time. This is pretty much my point, the influence of the Constitution has been increasing over time, not decreasing as the commenter to whom I originally replied seemed to imply. I don't know why you would use any but the longest available timeline when considering whether the Constitution is "still the law of the land". It's an inherently from-the-start kind of question.