Supremacy Clause and Nullification

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Dec 26, 2009.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

    When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

    While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.
     
  2. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Federal law rules absolute- in the very limited areas in which the Fed is given authority, listed elsewhere in the same document.
     
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante cereal offender Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    40,393
    Thanks Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    168
    Location:
    Skid Row
    Ratings:
    +2,044
    gawd, you're insufferable as well as stupid.
     
  4. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,472
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,474
    So if it's not constitutional, the states not only have a right, but a duty to reject those laws? I'm good with that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2009
  5. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,764
    Thanks Received:
    1,464
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +1,609
    The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

    Virginia Resolution of 1798

    Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed nullification to be one of the most important powers of the state governments against federal tyranny.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. ☭proletarian☭
    Online

    ☭proletarian☭ Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Correct.

    There was a war fought over the concept once... It was decided after the Fed won that war to ignore Constitutional limits on power, citing the supremacy clause general welfare clauses (without ever actually reading them, apparently) to give the fed carte blanche to do as it pleased. That has gotten us to where we are today.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2009
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    35,167
    Thanks Received:
    4,521
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +4,878
    If a law was unconstitutional it should not apply anyway. And that is consistent with the Supremacy clause. Your argument makes no sense, reread it and be more clear.

    IF a law or Treaty is passed and is Constitutional it is the LAW of the LAND. And no State or local Government can supersede it. That is all the Supremacy clause says.
     
  8. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,472
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,474
    Then we may be ready to do the same thing again. The worse this gets, the more states will want to pull out. Wow. One part civil war, one part revolution.
     
  9. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,046
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,046
    My highlighting added.

    The implication is that laws NOT made "in pursuance" of the Constitution are not the supreme law of the land.

    That is, laws made by the Federal Government which violate the Constitution are not supreme over contrary laws passed by any of the sovereign states of the Union.

    Some folks think that only the SCOTUS can tell us which laws are violative of the U.S. Constitution. I believe that is a seriously silly bit of thinking by those folks.
     
  10. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,207
    Thanks Received:
    2,218
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    Who desides if the laws violate the constitution?

    Who makes that determination?
     

Share This Page