The Misunderstood Supremacy Clause

[woodwork201]

Dude, I think you are off on this one. M14 Shooter is pretty conservative from what I can tell. He is just making an observation, which, unfortunately, is all to true.

The left worships Washington D.C. and anything they pass might as well be written in the bible.

If congress never passed another law, I don't think I'd be disappointed.

He may very well be a conservative. He may very well support the right to keep and bear arms, at least in a very limited way. But two things he does not support are the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. He's been very clear on that. He clearly supports the government infringement on the right to keep and bear arms that he likes and argues against that he dislikes.

One cannot ethically or morally defend the government when they operate outside their constitutional authority in one thing and then object when they operate outside of the Constitution in another thing. If you support the first thing then you have OK'd them to do anything they wish.

No, he's not right. The Constitution explicitly forbids the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Why would the Founders, in the very same document, both protect a set of rights in the entire Bill of Rights and then, right in the middle of the list, right in the middle of one of the amendments, say, "Nah.. we were just kidding. If you can get a court to order or Congress to pass it, the Government can take any rights, including all of these rights, including the other stated rights in this very 5th Amendment, if they choose.

That's a completely idiotic take on the due process clause.

I have posted it over and over again, what the Founders and even modern scholars say about the original intent of the due process clause in the 5th Amendment. First, the entire Bill of Rights were restrictions on government power, not enablers of government power. Second, it meant that the government must allow due process - notification, the right to argue against, the right to an attorney, etc., before the government exercises it's otherwise legal authorities.

Much has been written about the natural police powers of government and the Courts have, correctly in general but there are exceptions, ruled that the government has certain police powers by common law that are not explicit in the Constitution. One might argue, and many have, that restricting the right to keep and bear arms comes under those police powers but it cannot. Common law cannot override the explicit restrictions in the Constitution.