Govt used to protect our rights. But now it is "trying to help us". On the wrong track?

[KGB]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

That's right. You never understood.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

Flatly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

If you want that, move to Cuba. Or to Syria and join ISIS. Their central governments do that sort of thing all the time.

Perhaps you will begin to understand, at last.

Unfortunately.....nobody outside of Wingnutville thinks it is forbidden for functions to be performed at various or multiple levels of Government

Why wouldn't Americans want government functions performed where they make the most sense?

Because the 10th Amendment is rather clear on the subject....

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

 

[rightwinger]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

That's right. You never understood.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

Flatly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

If you want that, move to Cuba. Or to Syria and join ISIS. Their central governments do that sort of thing all the time.

Perhaps you will begin to understand, at last.

Unfortunately.....nobody outside of Wingnutville thinks it is forbidden for functions to be performed at various or multiple levels of Government

Why wouldn't Americans want government functions performed where they make the most sense?

Because the 10th Amendment is rather clear on the subject....

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

In other words, no court has ever subscribed to your extreme view of the tenth amendment

The federal government has wide latitude

 

[SwimExpert]

Because the 10th Amendment is rather clear on the subject....

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

Idiots who tragically don't understand the 10th amendment are always foolish.

The 10th Amendment is not the mechanism that limits federal powers. It reserves powers to the states that they previously held, which were not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the constitution. The federal government has wide powers. It also has very firm restrictions. The 10th amendment has nothing to do with restricting the power of the federal government. Instead, it deals with state government powers, affirming that the states retain their previous powers which the constitution did not explicitly take away from them through redirection to the federal government.

 

[KGB]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

That's right. You never understood.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

Flatly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

If you want that, move to Cuba. Or to Syria and join ISIS. Their central governments do that sort of thing all the time.

Perhaps you will begin to understand, at last.

Unfortunately.....nobody outside of Wingnutville thinks it is forbidden for functions to be performed at various or multiple levels of Government

Why wouldn't Americans want government functions performed where they make the most sense?

Because the 10th Amendment is rather clear on the subject....

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

In other words, no court has ever subscribed to your extreme view of the tenth amendment

The federal government has wide latitude

The courts are in error & I am quoting you chapter & verse. Are you suggesting the founders were extreme in their view when they wrote it....

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment - constitution | Laws.com

It basically states the people & the states tell the federal government what it may do. Not the other other way around. Just because the courts have gotten away from the original intent does not make it extreme.

 

[2aguy]

Voters are realizing that government's main purpose is no longer to protect people's individual rights. Most of what you hear now, and for the last few decades, is that government is "trying to help you". In other words, govt has moved into the business of favoring one group over another.

With this change, it has begun imposing its rules and restrictions based not on the complete equality under law demanded by the Constitution, but on constantly-changing standards of "deserving". Such as whether they are minorities, whether they are in unions, whether they own land where the snail darter or spotted owl lives, whether they are poor, etc. (Needless to say, people who have earned and saved a lot of money, are at the bottom of this "favored-group" list.)

So, many of those voters have inserted another qualification on whom they will vote for, for President. Their preferred candidate must be one who will favor them above others. The candidate who "will do more for them".

Since such selfish (and even larcenous) desires are not socially acceptable, they couch it in innocent-sounding phrases such as "I want a candidate who understands me", or "I want a candidate who sympathizes with the problems I am facing".

Back when government's only functions were national defense, coining money, setting standards, dealing with foreign nations, prosecuting certain crimes etc., such "sympathizing" was unnecessary. People tended to vote for the candidate they thought could handle the actual, legitimate functions of government better. And they tended to vote for stern, fatherly figures such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland etc. Leaders whom they thought would enforce the laws impartially and deal with challenges sternly and with some degree of integrity.

But now, government's main function has changed. It spends more and more time and money (especially money) trying to relieve you of the everyday problems in your own personal life (distributing health care, controlling the people around you and regulating what they built, what they sold you, what they said in your hearing, planning your retirement savings for you, deciding for you what your children could eat in school, and generally saving you from your own follies and mistakes). And as a result, more and more voters have now decided that it is more important to have a President they can count on to favor them, more than he favors people not like them.

So we're getting candidates who fight to "give" them health care based on how much they need rather than how hard they work to pay for what they get. Candidates who favor those who "need more", over those who managed to provide their own without the assistance of government. And those candidates get voted for more often than candidates who promise to make sure nobody stops you from earning enough to pay for your own health care. Same for candidates who promise to get you into college due to your skin color or national origin, over candidates who promise to make sure you have the same (and no more) chance to get into college regardless of your skin color... but leave it up to you to pay for it yourself.

Back when such matters were none of government's business, there was no point in voting for the more "sympathetic" candidate. And people would even wonder what kind of slippery trick you were trying to pull if you wanted someone who promised to make sure a pound of grain would weigh more at your mill than at the next town's mill... weights and measures being one of the few legitimate functions of government the candidate would actually be able to influence, in obedience to the Constitution.

And people's response to these governments whose main job is to hand out favors, as they have always responded to socialistic governments throughout history (including govts with those characteristics long before the term "socialism" was invented), is inevitable. Even the people with personal integrity, who wanted to stick to the old rules of actual fairness and impartiality, have started to see that it is now a losing gambit. If they don't try to sway government into favoring them more than their neighbor, they will simply find government favoring them far less and oppressing them even more.

And so, one by one, honest people gradually release their fealty toward stern, impartial government that stays out of their lives. And one by one, they throw in their lot with the people already trying to cadge more favors from government, whether in the name of "making reparations for the wrongs done by previous generations" or "providing health care to those who don't have it (itself a misleading lie)". And they do their best to vote for the candidate who (they will righteously tell you) "understands my own plight a little better" or "sympathizes for people in my particular position". Of course, these are both phrases that boil down to "he will do more good things for me, and relax the regulations a little more for me, than he will for the other guy."

Some people wonder why politicians pushing such favoritism, get so many votes. One explanation sometimes offered, is "voter fraud".

But in a sense, voter fraud isn't just fraud perpetrated AGAINST voters. There's another kind: The subtle fraud perpetrated BY voters against their fellow men, in an attempt to get government "on my side and not on your side".

And though subtle, this other kind of fraud is the most pernicious in the long run, since it causes the remaining fair, upright voters to abandon, one by one, their dedication to truly impartial government, and go over to supporting corruptible, me-over-you government.

And as more people go over to this corruptible, me-over-you government, this puts more pressure on the remaining (and now dwindling) individual citizens who were trying to play fair and maintain their integrity, to give up that integrity, and follow.

Many of the people pushing for big government "helping" people, don't intend for society to deteriorate, of course.

But the fact is, that is the inevitable result, when govt tries to "help" people.

1.) It turns into a pushing and shoving match, trying to get govt to help you more than it helps the other guy;
2.) Hardworking people who don't want govt favor, are persuaded one after the other to give up and seek favor anyway. While NO people are ever persuaded to go the other way. The result is a slow slide into dependence, with no particular urge to stop.

We are seeing the United States slide down this path, at an ever-increasing rate. Where people used to vote for Presidents based on how well they would defend the country, enforce our laws, and protect our rights, now the President's most ardent supporters crow over how popular he is, what a nice guy he is, and how "unfeeling" the opposing candidates were.

It is a sea change we can ill afford to ignore, and even less afford to indulge in. But is it one that can still be reversed?

Actually, government has never really been about protecting rights……most of human history it has been about a small minority controlling everyone else…and the regressives in the democrat party seek to create it again here in the U.S……we have tried to limit government's ability to control us and it worked for a while…we have to bear down and put government back in it's place….

 

[rightwinger]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

That's right. You never understood.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

Flatly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

If you want that, move to Cuba. Or to Syria and join ISIS. Their central governments do that sort of thing all the time.

Perhaps you will begin to understand, at last.

Unfortunately.....nobody outside of Wingnutville thinks it is forbidden for functions to be performed at various or multiple levels of Government

Why wouldn't Americans want government functions performed where they make the most sense?

Because the 10th Amendment is rather clear on the subject....

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

In other words, no court has ever subscribed to your extreme view of the tenth amendment

The federal government has wide latitude

The courts are in error & I am quoting you chapter & verse. Are you suggesting the founders were extreme in their view when they wrote it....

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

10th Amendment - constitution | Laws.com

It basically states the people & the states tell the federal government what it may do. Not the other other way around. Just because the courts have gotten away from the original intent does not make it extreme.

The courts are consistent in their interpretation. Both liberal and conservative

 

[KGB]

Because the 10th Amendment is rather clear on the subject....

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

Idiots who tragically don't understand the 10th amendment are always foolish.

The 10th Amendment is not the mechanism that limits federal powers. It reserves powers to the states that they previously held, which were not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the constitution. The federal government has wide powers. It also has very firm restrictions. The 10th amendment has nothing to do with restricting the power of the federal government. Instead, it deals with state government powers, affirming that the states retain their previous powers which the constitution did not explicitly take away from them through redirection to the federal government.

actually no, but I'll let you believe your fallocy...

10th Amendment - constitution | Laws.com

Everything the framers did when writing the Bill of Rights was to guard against a strong central government. They improved upon the Articles of Confederation, but still made it abundantly clear from where the powers of the federal govt are derived from....the states themselves & more so, the People. The federal government is there to provide for the common defense, collect taxes, & conduct international affairs. Beyond that, they really don't have any constitutional authority.

 

[SwimExpert]

Everything the framers did when writing the Bill of Rights was to guard against a strong central government.

No, moron. The Bill of Rights was about preserving the rights of the people, and in this particular case, the states. It is not about limiting the federal government's particular powers. The 10th amendment articulates a retention of rights by states and the people at large.

In other words, the states previously had the right to limit voting rights. Nowhere in the constitution is that power usurped for the federal government, nor prohibited to the states. The 10th amendment therefore reserved this power for the states. That does not mean that the federal government is forbidden from actions that would effect voting rights.

Based on your "interpretation" the 10th amendment would forbid the federal government from creating the Air Force, and only the states would be able to do that in individual capacities.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I never understood the rights obsession with the evils of a federal government

That's right. You never understood.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the local level.......Do it at the local level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the state level....Do it at the state level

Yes. Or do it yourself without trying to force other to obey you using the power of government.

If something can be done most effectively and efficiently at the federal level.......Do it at the federal level

Flatly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and for good reason.

If you want that, move to Cuba. Or to Syria and join ISIS. Their central governments do that sort of thing all the time.

Perhaps you will begin to understand, at last.

Unfortunately.....nobody outside of Wingnutville thinks it is forbidden for functions to be performed at various or multiple levels of Government

Why wouldn't Americans want government functions performed where they make the most sense?

Because the 10th Amendment is rather clear on the subject....

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

WIKIPEDIA? You call that an authoritative source? Your citation states in part, "It expresses the principle of federalism, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution of the United States of America...." [Emphasis Added}

If Amendment X STRICTLY supports the entire Constitution, then explain how it STRICTLY supports Article III, Section1, which vests the SUPREME JUDICIAL POWER in SCOTUS! Pretending that the Constitution is written in 18th century stone and immutable is to not understand that Great Social Contract! Nor is the Constitution a "Living Document" as some on the far left claim; there is nothing organic at all within the four corners of that Contract with the People. However, the Supremes DO have the Constitutional POWER AND AUTHORITY to interpret the Constitution (see the commentaries of Blackstone and Story along with SCOTUS Marbury v. Madison (1803)).

Here is a list of SCOTUS cases since our founding. These cases outline what the Constitution says about Amendment X vis-à-vis Federal and State conflicts in powers and jurisprudence. You'll see by just reading the Syllabi of the cases how case law contradicts WIKIPEDIA's assertion along with its incumbent implications.

Calder v. Bull3 u.s. 386 (1798)

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee14 u.s. 304 (1816)

Gibbons v. Ogden22 u.s. 1 (1824)

Northern Securities Co. v. United States193 u.s. 197 (1904)

McCray v. United States195 u.s. 27 (1904)

Hammer v. Dagenhart247 u.s. 251 (1918)

State of Missouri v. Holland252 u.s. 416 (1920)

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company259 u.s. 20 (1922)

A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States295 u.s. 495 (1935)

United States v. Butler297 u.s. 1 (1936)

Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority297 u.s. 288 (1936)

Carter v. Carter Coal Co.298 u.s. 238 (1936)

Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue301 u.s. 548 (1937)

Helvering v. Davis301 u.s. 619 (1937)

United States v. Darby312 u.s. 100 (1941)

Morgan v. Virginia328 u.s. 373 (1946)

Maryland v. Wirtz392 u.s. 183 (1968)

United Transportation Union v. Long Island Rail Road Co.455 u.s. 678 (1982)

Missouri v. Jenkins495 u.s. 33 (1990)

Printz v. United States521 u.s. 898 (1997)

Reno v. Condon528 u.s. 141 (2000)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

It basically states the people & the states tell the federal government what it may do. Not the other other way around. Just because the courts have gotten away from the original intent does not make it extreme.

If that is true, explain the Constitution's Supremacy clause in Article VI along with the rest of Clause 2. You are not going to be able to rationalize your statement I cited with the Constitution. You are dead wrong!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

In other words, no court has ever subscribed to your extreme view of the tenth amendment

As usual, when the liberals are refuted and can't find any support in the U.S. Constitution for their agenda, they change the subject.

Suddenly it's all about what the courts say, not what the Constitution says.

Game, set, match.

Back to the subject:
When the country starts disobeying the Constitution and the Fed govt starts passing laws to transfer wealth, run health care, run retirement programs, give people subsidies for everything under the sun etc., does that do more harm than good?

Quite aside from the fact that it's completely illegal.

 

[rightwinger]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

In other words, no court has ever subscribed to your extreme view of the tenth amendment

As usual, when the liberals are refuted and can't find any support in the U.S. Constitution for their agenda, they change the subject.

Suddenly it's all about what the courts say, not what the Constitution says.

Game, set, match.

Back to the subject:
When the country starts disobeying the Constitution and the Fed govt starts passing laws to transfer wealth, run health care, run retirement programs, give people subsidies for everything under the sun etc., does that do more harm than good?

Quite aside from the fact that it's completely illegal.

The courts are the ultimate interpreter of the constitution...... Not Internet message board posters

Game,set, match

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In other words, if it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the authority to do it. The framers were really big on local control, not federal fiat....

In other words, no court has ever subscribed to your extreme view of the tenth amendment

As usual, when the liberals are refuted and can't find any support in the U.S. Constitution for their agenda, they change the subject.

Suddenly it's all about what the courts say, not what the Constitution says.

Game, set, match.

Back to the subject:
When the country starts disobeying the Constitution and the Fed govt starts passing laws to transfer wealth, run health care, run retirement programs, give people subsidies for everything under the sun etc., does that do more harm than good?

Quite aside from the fact that it's completely illegal.

It's ALWAYS been about the Article III Courts especially the power of judicial review VESTED in SCOTUS. If you knew anything other than Tea Bagging doctrinal talking points bull shit, you might have picked up on that! You're just acting as a sock puppet shill spreading doctrinal swill!

 

[SwimExpert]

It's ALWAYS been about the Article III Courts especially the power of judicial review VESTED in SCOTUS. If you knew anything other than Tea Bagging doctrinal talking points bull shit, you might have picked up on that! You're just acting as a sock puppet shill spreading doctrinal swill!

The Republican party used to be the elitist party. It's why we tended to win the Presidency, even when the country was putting Democrats in power in Congress. But Gingrich got us obsessing over winning over the little people. The result is obtuse chatter at the volume of a jet engine.

 

[KGB]

Everything the framers did when writing the Bill of Rights was to guard against a strong central government.

No, moron. The Bill of Rights was about preserving the rights of the people, and in this particular case, the states. It is not about limiting the federal government's particular powers. The 10th amendment articulates a retention of rights by states and the people at large.

In other words, the states previously had the right to limit voting rights. Nowhere in the constitution is that power usurped for the federal government, nor prohibited to the states. The 10th amendment therefore reserved this power for the states. That does not mean that the federal government is forbidden from actions that would effect voting rights.

Based on your "interpretation" the 10th amendment would forbid the federal government from creating the Air Force, and only the states would be able to do that in individual capacities.

No jackwad, limiting the federal government is the explicit intent of the 10th Amendment. You do get the Framers just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical central government in a world capital. They wanted to protect the rights of the People and the States just for that reason. This is exactly why the Bill of Rights make up the first 10 Amendments. The Framers set up the country so that the People were served first, the States second, the federal government last.

And there is nothing forbidding the federal government from creating any new military branch either since it falls under raising armies & navies to protect the country. The Air Force was born from the Army....

It's progressive garbage that has twisted the original intent which should be clearly evident to anyone with a reading comprehension beyond third grade...

 

[KGB]

It basically states the people & the states tell the federal government what it may do. Not the other other way around. Just because the courts have gotten away from the original intent does not make it extreme.

If that is true, explain the Constitution's Supremacy clause in Article VI along with the rest of Clause 2. You are not going to be able to rationalize your statement I cited with the Constitution. You are dead wrong!

Actually you are dead wrong. The Constitution is not solely for the purpose of creating a federal government. It is documenting our freedoms & telling government what it may not do. In other words, the Constitution & the federal government are not one in the same. Again, liberal garbage which tries to confuse where rights come from. Big hint: they don't come from government.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

It basically states the people & the states tell the federal government what it may do. Not the other other way around. Just because the courts have gotten away from the original intent does not make it extreme.

If that is true, explain the Constitution's Supremacy clause in Article VI along with the rest of Clause 2. You are not going to be able to rationalize your statement I cited with the Constitution. You are dead wrong!

Actually you are dead wrong. The Constitution is not solely for the purpose of creating a federal government. It is documenting our freedoms & telling government what it may not do. In other words, the Constitution & the federal government are not one in the same. Again, liberal garbage which tries to confuse where rights come from. Big hint: they don't come from government.

So by indirection you are stating that you haven't a clue about the Supremacy Clause either OR that you've been caught out as a Constitutional know nothing FOOL by its mentions and the implications to your assertions. Either way, you're an fraud!

For everyone's edification here is the clause in its entirety; Article VI, Cls. 2:

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis Added]

You avoided addressing that and instead deflected stating the obvious that the Constitution was not intended to ONLY create the Federal and then went on about other Tea Bagger drivel, followed by a confused diatribe about individual rights as if they were the same topic being discussed at the outset. Newsflash smack, Amendment X is not an inalienable individual right. Remember? That was your topic to which I originally responded.

You confused Tea Bagging sycophants refuse to acknowledge what is actually in the Constitution only to recite the articles of faith of your faction's propagandists. To any other thoughts its as if you have your fingers in your ears babbling na na na na like good little drones to avoid the taint of facts and ideas outside of your tribal dogma.

Respond at your own peril if you do so with more Tea Bagger BS! Otherwise respond with SUBSTANCE regarding the topics!

 

[Little-Acorn]

(insults, smears and namecalling deleted)

(gee, nothing remains!)

The Supremacy clause says that the powers given to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and Federal laws that conform to it, supersede state and local laws.

And the Constitution then goes on to say that the Fed govt isn't empowered to do very much. Only the things explicitly listed in the Constitution, plus what little will benefit all Americans equally. All else is to be done by state governments and "the people".

The states can expand their powers if they want. The Fed govt can't, unless they get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to agree.

So basically the States are sovereign, except in the (comparatively narrow) areas given to the Fed by the Constitution.

Of course, the liberals hate those restrictions on central government, and so they do their best to ignore them, violate them and/or pretend they don't exist. They pass all kinds of laws that DON'T conform to the Constitution's restrictions on the Fed govt, in flagrant violation of the Supremacy clause and other Constitutional mandates, and then try to fool people into thinking they are obeying the Constitution.

Conservatives (i.e. most Americans) know they are not. Only those who accept their bribes (subsidies, wealth transfers, other goodies) still vote for them. So the liberals try to get as many people as possible to take their bribes, in hopes of political survival.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

(insults, smears and namecalling deleted)

(gee, nothing remains!)

The Supremacy clause says that the powers given to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and Federal laws that conform to it, supersede state and local laws.

And the Constitution then goes on to say that the Fed govt isn't empowered to do very much. Only the things explicitly listed in the Constitution, plus what little will benefit all Americans equally. All else is to be done by state governments and "the people".

The states can expand their powers if they want. The Fed govt can't, unless they get 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states to agree.

So basically the States are sovereign, except in the (comparatively narrow) areas given to the Fed by the Constitution.

Of course, the liberals hate those restrictions on central government, and so they do their best to ignore them, violate them and/or pretend they don't exist. They pass all kinds of laws that DON'T conform to the Constitution's restrictions on the Fed govt, in flagrant violation of the Supremacy clause and other Constitutional mandates, and then try to fool people into thinking they are obeying the Constitution.

Conservatives (i.e. most Americans) know they are not. Only those who accept their bribes (subsidies, wealth transfers, other goodies) still vote for them. So the liberals try to get as many people as possible to take their bribes, in hopes of political survival.

You responded to my post to another on a totally separate subject. Were you too inept to notice or was it a dodge from taking responsibility for another of your failures in understanding the Constitution and Constitutional law? Either way you're going to have to either respond to that post #60 or concede your errors regarding the topics discussed therein before moving on to the Supremacy Clause and discussing your abject ignorance you have displayed about its proper role within the four corners of the Constitution.

Here is a clue...Opinions are not facts, and opinions that are nullified by facts make the author of those opinions look damned foolish. In other words, an unsupported statement holds no validity whatsoever until it is authoritatively supported, otherwise it is nothing but opinion and protesting it is fact just because you typed it is childish hogwash! And remember this:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic] say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution." < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, 1907 >

 

[danielpalos]

We should be more grateful for socialism and the social concept of equality before the law.

It merely requires more social effort and not more capital effort.