Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Jesus, what are you drinking?Are you serious? There are countless examples. Bureaucrats and judges write laws all the time. I was recently given a warning and threatened with a fine for camping in an area the ranger said was closed to camping. There is no congressional law that said that. The National forest service just wrote the "law".
The executive can write its own regulations and rules. which require no legislation from Congress.
Don't camp where you are not supposed to camp, podjo.
That is a fucking lie, the executive can only write rules to implement legislation, period.
Article1: Section: 8
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Federalist papers were written arguing in support of a STRONG federal government.
The anti federalists had arguments too.
Hamilton was one of the fiercest proponents of adoption of the USC even though it was more of a document to Madison's liking than his own.
The framers (not the founders) brooked compromise.
now take a hike back to your home school
The "Federalist Papers" are pretty neat archives but they were intended to be illustrations and agendas based on revolutionary propaganda. Hamilton was a walking contradiction. He was a patriot who fought beside Washington but he also admired the British centralized government. He was a federalist but switched parties (and beliefs?) when he opposed Adam's bid for reelection. The framers and the founders created the greatest document in the world. The Constitution is the law of the land regardless of the low information left's sudden interest in revolutionary history.
The Federalist Papers were written by three individuals: Hamilton (51), Madison (29) and Jay (5). They are not law, they were efforts to urge the NY Convention to ratify the Constitution. Thus they used logic intermixed with appeals to prejudice; they argued the Articles of Confederation were weak and a strong Federal Gov't was necessary to protect the nation from a strong British Navy and the ambitions of Spain.
[
Again, Article VI is clear and beyond dispute: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts are supreme, where the states are subordinate to those laws and rulings; this was the original intent of the Framers and the people of the Founding Generation, it was their desire to create a National government and to interact with the National government absent interference from the states.
.
[
Again, Article VI is clear and beyond dispute: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts are supreme, where the states are subordinate to those laws and rulings; this was the original intent of the Framers and the people of the Founding Generation, it was their desire to create a National government and to interact with the National government absent interference from the states.
.
That's a brazen lie and you know it. The Supremacy Clause you refer to (but don't actually quote from) says
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The federal constitution is supreme but federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. And who decides that.? By the tenth amendment it's up to the states or the people.
That's a brazen lie and you know it. The Supremacy Clause you refer to (but don't actually quote from) says
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The federal constitution is supreme but federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. And who decides that.? By the tenth amendment it's up to the states or the people.
Well, the Supreme Court took the power to decide the Constitutionality of laws with Marbury. If the framers ever intended that to be a state responsibility, the states lost that power as did the executive branch, with that court case.
The intent of the framers was to create a government with tremendous national powers as compared to the government they were replacing, and that meant size. Where is it found in the Constitution that the size of the national government is limited?
See the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, the feds were limited to 18 specific functions the remainder have been granted unconstitutionally by the courts. That's why we need an Article 5 convention, to reign in all 3 branches.
Wrong, the federal government was not limited to the 17 powers in section 8, but the Congress was. In addition the Congress could legislate all the laws necessary and proper to carry into execution all the other powers not only in section 8, but all powers and vested in the Constitution. So what are all those other laws Congress was authorized to pass, and who decides they are necessary and proper?
Haven't you heard? The constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT so unelected judges are allowed to change it at will. The actual amending process takes too long.[q
Your logic train jumped the tracks. If your concept was true, the federal government would be limited only by its own restraint. There are no other federal powers vested in the Constitution beyond those specified in Section Eight. Those other powers you speak of have been given to the federal government by the Supreme Court, not by the Constitution.
.
See the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, the feds were limited to 18 specific functions the remainder have been granted unconstitutionally by the courts. That's why we need an Article 5 convention, to reign in all 3 branches.
Wrong, the federal government was not limited to the 17 powers in section 8, but the Congress was. In addition the Congress could legislate all the laws necessary and proper to carry into execution all the other powers not only in section 8, but all powers and vested in the Constitution. So what are all those other laws Congress was authorized to pass, and who decides they are necessary and proper?
Your logic train jumped the tracks. If your concept was true, the federal government would be limited only by its own restraint. There are no other federal powers vested in the Constitution beyond those specified in Section Eight. Those other powers you speak of have been given to the federal government by the Supreme Court, not by the Constitution.
Perhaps, we need to go back to basics to clarify this issue. The United States of America is a union of soverign states. (Soverign means that states possess supreme or ultimate power). The United States Constitution is a contract established by these soverign states for a federal government to represent the collective interests of these states. This contract specifies the powers granted to the federal government by the states. The terms of this contract can only be changed by action of a super majority of all the states.
The federal government, by contract, is designed to be a servant of the states, and not their master. However, the United States Supreme Court, a part of this federal government, has taken it upon itself to modifiy that contract in favor of the federal government. It has driven so many holes through the commerce clause, the 10th Amendment, and the general welfare clause, that one could drive a truck through the gaps in constitutional restraint.
Every governmental ill that we face today, can be traced back to Supreme Court decisions broadening the powers of the federal government through redefinition of the commerce clause, the general welfare clause, or the 10th amendment.
[
Again, Article VI is clear and beyond dispute: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts are supreme, where the states are subordinate to those laws and rulings; this was the original intent of the Framers and the people of the Founding Generation, it was their desire to create a National government and to interact with the National government absent interference from the states.
.
That's a brazen lie and you know it. The Supremacy Clause you refer to (but don't actually quote from) says
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The federal constitution is supreme but federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. And who decides that.? By the tenth amendment it's up to the states or the people.
Of course it could be done. In fact it would be easy if we returned to what the FF wanted - a very very small federal govt.
The intent of the framers was to create a government with tremendous national powers as compared to the government they were replacing, and that meant size. Where is it found in the Constitution that the size of the national government is limited?
See the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, the feds were limited to 18 specific functions the remainder have been granted unconstitutionally by the courts. That's why we need an Article 5 convention, to reign in all 3 branches.
The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied powers. If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate and plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may be employed to*carry*it into effect pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause.
The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means ofcarrying*into effect other powers which are sovereign. It may be exercised whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. If a certain means to*carry*into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.
The Bank of the United States has a right to establish its branches within any state. The States have no power, by*taxationor otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution. This principle does not extend to property taxes on the property of the Bank of the United States, nor to taxes on the proprietary interest which the citizens of that State may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State.
McCulloch v. Maryland ? Case Brief Summary
In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court reaffirmed the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government was to be supreme, that the Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied, and that the states have no authority to interfere with the National government:
[
Federal laws are presumed to be Constitutional until determined otherwise by the courts, not the states (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)).
Neither the states nor the people have the authority to unilaterally ignore Federal laws (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)); if the people perceive a Federal law to be potentially un-Constitutional, they're at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.
Only when a law is invalidated by the Federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, the final appellate Court, can a law indeed be classified as 'un-Constitutional.'
Since before McCulloch it was understood that the 10th Amendment does not afford the states the 'authority' to ignore just and proper Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts.
[
Again, Article VI is clear and beyond dispute: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts are supreme, where the states are subordinate to those laws and rulings; this was the original intent of the Framers and the people of the Founding Generation, it was their desire to create a National government and to interact with the National government absent interference from the states.
.
That's a brazen lie and you know it. The Supremacy Clause you refer to (but don't actually quote from) says
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The federal constitution is supreme but federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. And who decides that.? By the tenth amendment it's up to the states or the people.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;to Controversies between two or more States;between a State and Citizens of another State;between Citizens of different States;between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Article 3, section 2
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78
Jesus, what are you drinking?The executive can write its own regulations and rules. which require no legislation from Congress.
Don't camp where you are not supposed to camp, podjo.
That is a fucking lie, the executive can only write rules to implement legislation, period.
Article1: Section: 8
...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Gawd, use a search engine before you embarrass the usmb community like this.
https://www.boundless.com/political...groups/regulating-executive-branch-lobbyists/
http://www.csun.edu/~rprovin/PDFs/Chap08Notes.pdf
with only one search and two links... [MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]
The intent of the framers was to create a government with tremendous national powers as compared to the government they were replacing, and that meant size. Where is it found in the Constitution that the size of the national government is limited?
See the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, the feds were limited to 18 specific functions the remainder have been granted unconstitutionally by the courts. That's why we need an Article 5 convention, to reign in all 3 branches.
Wrong, the federal government was not limited to the 17 powers in section 8, but the Congress was. In addition the Congress could legislate all the laws necessary and proper to carry into execution all the other powers not only in section 8, but all powers and vested in the Constitution. So what are all those other laws Congress was authorized to pass, and who decides they are necessary and proper?
[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]The USC provides for this: Private property can be taken for public use, with just compensation.
You are swinging at windmills
It also says that the feds can't purchase land within a State without the consent of the legislature, the property you're talking about is for instance the feds commandeer a ship during war time, they must compensate the owner. The feds have no {sic} imminent domain over any private lands.
First of all, if you're going to even attempt to ponder, pontificate, and profess to know wtf you are talking about: Eminent domain
next?
The ignorance of the Constitution and contempt for its case law as exhibited by many conservatives is nothing new.
Indeed, of all the posts in this thread by rightists not one citation of case law in support can be found and for good reason: there isnt any.
It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government was to be supreme, where the states are subject to Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts. We know this to be a fact as mandated by Article VI and its supporting case law (see, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).
It was also the intent of the Founding Generation to create a National government, and for the people to be citizens of one Nation, where the Constitution was created to safeguard the liberties of the whole of the American people, as Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, and residents of their states subordinate to that.
And it was the will of all the people that the states not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government, where the National government was their creation.
As Justice Kennedy accurately explained in US Term Limits:
This is why the states have no authority to ignore or nullify Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts; this is why the states have no authority whatsoever to violate the civil liberties of their residents; and this is why the will of the people has no authority when the majority seeks to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights.
Within it's proper sphere, that's the caveat you commies seem to forget. We have a Federal Government, not a national government, with defined and limited powers. Your fine courts have been complicit with the politicians they depend on for career advancement to destroy the founders original intent. Any court ruling that is not in accordance with the letter and intent of the Constitution is null and void, doesn't matter how much power the courts confer on themselves. The States can change the scope of the Federal Government at will through Article 5 and there is not a damned thing the courts, congress or the executive can do about it, why, because the States are the master of the Federal Government not the other way round.
Incorrect.
Again, Article VI is clear and beyond dispute: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts are supreme, where the states are subordinate to those laws and rulings; this was the original intent of the Framers and the people of the Founding Generation, it was their desire to create a National government and to interact with the National government absent interference from the states.
We are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of our respective states secondary to that, and the states lack the authority to deny American citizens residing in the states their civil liberties as codified and protected by the Federal Constitution and its case law.
One does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of this state of residence, nor does the will of the people trump the civil liberties of an American citizen, as the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
See the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, the feds were limited to 18 specific functions the remainder have been granted unconstitutionally by the courts. That's why we need an Article 5 convention, to reign in all 3 branches.
Wrong, the federal government was not limited to the 17 powers in section 8, but the Congress was. In addition the Congress could legislate all the laws necessary and proper to carry into execution all the other powers not only in section 8, but all powers and vested in the Constitution. So what are all those other laws Congress was authorized to pass, and who decides they are necessary and proper?
Exactly what powers are you referring to, paying to establishing embassies, funding other executive functions and the federal courts. There are no powers vested in the federal government other than those specifically enumerated, if you doubt that see the 10th Amendment.
[
Again, Article VI is clear and beyond dispute: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts are supreme, where the states are subordinate to those laws and rulings; this was the original intent of the Framers and the people of the Founding Generation, it was their desire to create a National government and to interact with the National government absent interference from the states.
.
That's a brazen lie and you know it. The Supremacy Clause you refer to (but don't actually quote from) says
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
The federal constitution is supreme but federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. And who decides that.? By the tenth amendment it's up to the states or the people.
Incorrect.
Federal laws are presumed to be Constitutional until determined otherwise by the courts, not the states (see, e.g., US v. Morrison (2000)).
Neither the states nor the people have the authority to unilaterally ignore Federal laws (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)); if the people perceive a Federal law to be potentially un-Constitutional, they're at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek relief.
Only when a law is invalidated by the Federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, the final appellate Court, can a law indeed be classified as 'un-Constitutional.'
Since before McCulloch it was understood that the 10th Amendment does not afford the states the 'authority' to ignore just and proper Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts.
