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.
WOW! Only 2 current GOP candidates back state rights!!!!!!!!! What U say on this one???
Leading GOP Candidates Don't Want to Return Power to the States - Yahoo! News
WOW! Only 2 current GOP candidates back state rights!!!!!!!!! What U say on this one???
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."
McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall developed a clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. He also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce Clause. Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress.
Gibbons v. Ogden | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
From the beginning and for many years, the [10thA]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
United States v. Darby
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
The 10th Amendment spells this out. We need more power devolved to the states, which is what the Founders wanted.
Perry once again shines and presents a clear alternative to the compromised "lead" candidates.
"You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That's what needs to happen in the states. And it's also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels."
--Rick Perry at the Tea Party Express debate
WOW! Only 2 current GOP candidates back state rights!!!!!!!!! What U say on this one???
If true its a refreshing and pleasant surprise a significant majority of GOP candidates understand Constitutional case law, however inadvertent. If not true it doesnt matter.
As early as the First Quarter of the 19th Century the Court held that Federal law preempts state law, and that states had no right to ignore Federal legislation:
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."
McCulloch v. Maryland | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
In United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), the Court reaffirmed the long understood and settled doctrine that the 10th Amendment did not authorize states to reject or otherwise ignore Federal legislation the states might consider offensive:
From the beginning and for many years, the [10thA]mendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
United States v. Darby
They myth of states rights was finally and permanently put to rest in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).
In Cooper the Court held it was un-Constitutional for the state of Arkansas to ignore the Constitution, the law, and the Supreme Court by passing legislation prohibiting the Little Rock school district from integrating:
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
The 10th Amendment spells this out. We need more power devolved to the states, which is what the Founders wanted.
Perry once again shines and presents a clear alternative to the compromised "lead" candidates.
Sometimes.
"You want to talk about some powerful job creation, tell the trial lawyers to get out of your state and to quit costing businessmen and women. That's what needs to happen in the states. And it's also what needs to happen at the federal level, passing federal tort reform at those federal levels."
--Rick Perry at the Tea Party Express debate
You're supporting Perry now? Because this quote makes me like him even more. And he's right, of course.
You're supporting Perry now? Because this quote makes me like him even more. And he's right, of course.
Are you kidding? I'd give anything for Perry to get the nomination.
You're supporting Perry now? Because this quote makes me like him even more. And he's right, of course.
Are you kidding? I'd give anything for Perry to get the nomination.
Same here. BEcause he will beat Obama like a red headed stepchild. But heck, Bachmann could do that too.
The Rabbi said:Perry is garlic for the Democratic vampires. He gains momentum daily. The more people hear him, the more they like him. He does not speak in scripted sound bites, and he has absolutely gets it. He has had 10 years plus in Texas politics, which is not a gentlemen's game. He is also badly underestimated by the Obama camp.
I'd look for a growing surge in momentum as he blows away the other candidates and sharpens his claws on Obama and his disgusting record of failure.
These people are not interested in weakening any position they are elected to, You can forget it. All they really want is to be the one in charge of any government oppression real or imagined.
The GOP only likes some states rights...for others, they want Constitutional Amendments.
Wow... most of the liberals either avoided this thread like the plague, or shut the fuck up when shot down
The GOP only likes some states rights...for others, they want Constitutional Amendments.
The GOP only likes some states rights...for others, they want Constitutional Amendments.
Let's see....
The U.S. Constitution defines a specific set of powers for the federal government.
If you want to add powers to the federal government....you amend the constitution.
