Something not discussed nearly enough, even around here, is that the federal government does NOT have authority to "do whatever it wants." It has LIMITED authority, per the Constitution.
The federal government has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over (a) Washington, DC, (b) the federal territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), and (c) the federal enclaves (areas such as military bases, where the State granted to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction or such jurisdiction was reserved by the federal government upon statehood).
In every other area within the States, the federal government ONLY has jurisdiction in those specific areas that the Constitution enumerates such powers (bankruptcy courts, immigration law, post offices, etc.).
In 1956, a report was published discussing federal jurisdiction:
https://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/DSJurisdictionReport1957.pdf
As the federal government attempts to encroach on areas that are not within its powers, it becomes more and more important to be reminded of the constitutional limitations.
The trick used today is the feds claim they have a "contract" with a person or business and that allows them to violate their jurisdictional limits.
It does not. The feds cannot obtain by private contract what it cannot have the authority to do via the Constitution.
I didn't say anything about that. You are the one confused here.
Federal government has no constitutional authority to determine education curriculum in classrooms outside of federal territories and enclaves, but they do it via financial incentives to the States, and then they attach strings to it.
Happens ALL THE TIME. That's one small example.
In law school, you are only taught part of the law, and then only from one particular perspective (namely, that there is no such thing as right and wrong, but only winning arugments and losing arguments).
I didn't mention anything about personal jurisidiction. I specifically mentioned federal jurisdiction.
No, I am talking about federal jurisdiction vs. State jurisdiction.
But we don't have to accept false court decisions. We can replace judges who violate their oath of office -- something that will NEVER be mentioned in law school.
Law school does not teach you how terribly corrrupt the majority of judges are today. Only the School of Hard Knocks can do that.
You have no clue what I'm taught in law school, because clearly you are not a lawyer nor attend law school yourself. Stop assuming you have some secret knowledge about a subject you literally have no training in. "No such thing as right or wrong, only winning and losing arguments" is literally what I would expect a person who has never been to law school would cynically say about what they expect law school to be.
You invoke the term "federal jurisdiction" as if it's a self defining phrase. Federal jurisdiction in what? Article 1 or 3? You ARE conflating the two because you are interchangeably taking concepts from legislating and adjudicating and pretending they are two sides of the same coin.
You think we don't talk about replacing judges who violate their oath of office? Ya man, we NEVER talk about professional responsibility. It's not like we have an entire class on it and then have to take the MPRE. And I am assuming by "violate their oath of office" you mean "Anything a court does that I don't understand".
Get off your high horse.