Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

If we accept that premise as true, then what happened? Wasn't there a subsequent civil war? How much blood was spilled? At great human cost, didn't the civil war give rise to the post-civil war amendments? Those amendments provide the federal government with authority to "manage" states. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents States from depriving persons of their lives, liberty, or property without due process of law and depriving persons of equal protection under the law.

The civil war occurred because a single man decided that the primary reason for our founding, that free men should be able to govern themselves, was no longer a valid concept. And through the force of arms, imposed his will, while ignoring the bedrock principle.

You must be one of those who was taught that the War was started by the North. "The Lost Cause" propaganda machine was well entrenched by the 1880s.

Guess you haven't figured out that sending troops to a neighboring country is an act of war.

The southern states were not a "neighboring country". The people of the southern states were engaged in insurrection. They fired upon a union military installation (Fort Sumter). The federal government has power under the Constitution to suppress insurrections.

See post 216.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

That would be the Constitution, but no where is secession prohibited in that document, is it?

Secession? No...and if the South had stuck with just that, they might have succeeded. But they were stupid and fired first on a federal installation that had not fired on them.

Stupid...and treason. They deserved more than what Sherman did to Georgia.

The US was told to remove their soldiers from a sovereign nation and they did the opposite, that was an act of war.

Are you really that fucking stupid to believe that garbage? The tail (State) does not wag the dog (Federal), Tex. The several States of the United States are sovereign entities under the umbrella of US sovereignty and subordinate to the United States of America. Read and UNDERSTAND Article VI, Cls 2!

Maybe you should get an adult to explain to you the limitations contained in the three little words "in pursuance thereof".

Being cryptic simply to hide your ignorance is not going to help you. Those three words mean what they mean and NOTHING more, and that is laws passed pursuant to the Constitution. You very conveniently left out this passage; "...and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Somewhere there is an in pursuence of

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why can't we popularily elect judges to the supreme court to one 10 year term. I'm getting a little tired of having no say in how laws are shaped by supreme court decisions in this country. I think if we are going to allow the existence of case law then the people should at least be able to determine what that should look like BECAUSE THIS IS A FUCKIN DEMOCRACY.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States. And the State used the democratic process to secede.

Are you freaking serious? Amendment X was the EXCUSE of the secessionists to rebel; States Rights was the bogus excuse to color the claim. Those States joining the US voluntarily ceded a portion of the sovereignty to join the union and accepted the Constitution as written.

Amendment X is about EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED powers of the Federal and the subordinate States. There can be found no authority in the Constitution where the federal has the power to expel a troublesome State, such as Tejas, so how the fuck does a subordinate power have that power to exercise it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Tex!

As the 10th states, the State are only subordinate in the areas where THEY granted power to the feds, no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union.

And EXACTLY where can that be ascertained in either the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision? You're forgetting about the chicken and egg conundrum you've created with your silly argument! You've forgotten the timing of certain occurrences and SCOTUS decisions that put the lie to your horseshit, Tex!

Oh right, a federal entity deciding, no conflict of interest there. LMAO

 

[Debra K]

No they weren't. The Supremacy clause applies to the federal government, not the individual states.

You seem to forget, the supremacy if the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states, it says so right in the clause itself.

Article 6, Clause 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Underline the part above that says "the supremacy if (sic) the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states." It says NO SUCH THING. Thus, you should identify which clause you are allegedly relying upon so the reader may correct your error.

I think you're misconstruing "the Laws of the United States". The United States is the federal government. Federal laws are set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please clarify.

So you don't understand that "in pursuance thereof", is a limiting factor. They are only supreme in the laws made pursuant to the Constitution itself, they forfeit supremacy when a law is not pursuant to the Constitution. Of course the supreme court has been complicit in allowing them to do otherwise.

Give me an example of a United States law that was NOT "made in pursuance thereof." I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.

How about a law to regulate commodities that were never bought or sold and never crossed a State line, in fact they never left the property where they were grown.

Show me in the commerce clause where that could be considered Constitutional.

I think you're referring to Wickard v. Filburn. Here's what the supreme court said about the reach of the commerce clause power:

"[T]he reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power."

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (citing United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119).

 

[OKTexas]

That would be the Constitution, but no where is secession prohibited in that document, is it?

Secession? No...and if the South had stuck with just that, they might have succeeded. But they were stupid and fired first on a federal installation that had not fired on them.

Stupid...and treason. They deserved more than what Sherman did to Georgia.

The US was told to remove their soldiers from a sovereign nation and they did the opposite, that was an act of war.

Are you really that fucking stupid to believe that garbage? The tail (State) does not wag the dog (Federal), Tex. The several States of the United States are sovereign entities under the umbrella of US sovereignty and subordinate to the United States of America. Read and UNDERSTAND Article VI, Cls 2!

Maybe you should get an adult to explain to you the limitations contained in the three little words "in pursuance thereof".

Being cryptic simply to hide your ignorance is not going to help you. Those three words mean what they mean and NOTHING more, and that is laws passed pursuant to the Constitution. You very conveniently left out this passage; "...and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yet the court strikes down federal laws all the time, go figure. Also your dear leader attempts to rewrite the Constitution through the treaty process hasn't faired very well either.

 

[OKTexas]

Why can't we popularily elect judges to the supreme court to one 10 year term. I'm getting a little tired of having no say in how laws are shaped by supreme court decisions in this country. I think if we are going to allow the existence of case law then the people should at least be able to determine what that should look like BECAUSE THIS IS A FUCKIN DEMOCRACY.

No it's a republic, do you really want the people living on the east and west coasts selecting our supreme court, I don't, that's what you would get with popular elections.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Why can't we popularily elect judges to the supreme court to one 10 year term. I'm getting a little tired of having no say in how laws are shaped by supreme court decisions in this country. I think if we are going to allow the existence of case law then the people should at least be able to determine what that should look like BECAUSE THIS IS A FUCKIN DEMOCRACY.

No it's a republic, do you really want the people living on the east and west coasts selecting our supreme court, I don't, that's what you would get with popular elections.

It is a republic which means we have rules for the people in power to follow (that is the way I am interpretting that) but somehow the authoritarian interpretation of that has became the people don't have any control over how their government works. The result is that we should just appoint lords to decide how our government should operate and 'this is a republic not a democracy line' becomes these are the rules and this is how the peasants should live because we run everything.

I realize that you may think the people chooses the wrong politicians (sometimes they do) but your entire attitude seems to be that when the people can choose in an election that they will choose pretty badly. In other words, the people can't make good choices ever which is why we shouldn't have elections. I'm so sick and tired of hearing this authoritarian elitist garbage coming out the mouths of my fellow Americans. I realize that people make and they often make them in groups as well as individually but I don't see anywhere where it is written person XYZ has the right in a society to unilaterally decide how other people should live. I kind of thought we were all 'equals' in America but apparently that isn't the case anymore.

 

[Debra K]

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

The United States of America did not give its consent to have its military property (Fort Sumter) taken from its dominion and control nor to have South Carolina or any other state secede from the union. It was an insurrection by armed rebels.

Full Definition of rebellion

1. 
   1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
   
   
2. 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
   

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget, the supremacy if the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states, it says so right in the clause itself.

Article 6, Clause 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Underline the part above that says "the supremacy if (sic) the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states." It says NO SUCH THING. Thus, you should identify which clause you are allegedly relying upon so the reader may correct your error.

I think you're misconstruing "the Laws of the United States". The United States is the federal government. Federal laws are set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please clarify.

So you don't understand that "in pursuance thereof", is a limiting factor. They are only supreme in the laws made pursuant to the Constitution itself, they forfeit supremacy when a law is not pursuant to the Constitution. Of course the supreme court has been complicit in allowing them to do otherwise.

Give me an example of a United States law that was NOT "made in pursuance thereof." I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.

How about a law to regulate commodities that were never bought or sold and never crossed a State line, in fact they never left the property where they were grown.

Show me in the commerce clause where that could be considered Constitutional.

I think you're referring to Wickard v. Filburn. Here's what the supreme court said about the reach of the commerce clause power:

"[T]he reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power."

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (citing United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119).

I didn't ask for a defective supreme court decision, I asked you to point out in the source document, the Constitution, where the feds were granted that power.

 

[OKTexas]

Why can't we popularily elect judges to the supreme court to one 10 year term. I'm getting a little tired of having no say in how laws are shaped by supreme court decisions in this country. I think if we are going to allow the existence of case law then the people should at least be able to determine what that should look like BECAUSE THIS IS A FUCKIN DEMOCRACY.

No it's a republic, do you really want the people living on the east and west coasts selecting our supreme court, I don't, that's what you would get with popular elections.

It is a republic which means we have rules for the people in power to follow (that is the way I am interpretting that) but somehow the authoritarian interpretation of that has became the people don't have any control over how their government works. The result is that we should just appoint lords to decide how our government should operate and 'this is a republic not a democracy line' becomes these are the rules and this is how the peasants should live because we run everything.

I realize that you may think the people chooses the wrong politicians (sometimes they do) but your entire attitude seems to be that when the people can choose in an election that they will choose pretty badly. In other words, the people can't make good choices ever which is why we shouldn't have elections. I'm so sick and tired of hearing this authoritarian elitist garbage coming out the mouths of my fellow Americans. I realize that people make and they often make them in groups as well as individually but I don't see anywhere where it is written person XYZ has the right in a society to unilaterally decide how other people should live. I kind of thought we were all 'equals' in America but apparently that isn't the case anymore.

So you would prefer liberal population centers deciding how the rest of us live?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States. And the State used the democratic process to secede.

Are you freaking serious? Amendment X was the EXCUSE of the secessionists to rebel; States Rights was the bogus excuse to color the claim. Those States joining the US voluntarily ceded a portion of the sovereignty to join the union and accepted the Constitution as written.

Amendment X is about EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED powers of the Federal and the subordinate States. There can be found no authority in the Constitution where the federal has the power to expel a troublesome State, such as Tejas, so how the fuck does a subordinate power have that power to exercise it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Tex!

As the 10th states, the State are only subordinate in the areas where THEY granted power to the feds, no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union.

And EXACTLY where can that be ascertained in either the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision? You're forgetting about the chicken and egg conundrum you've created with your silly argument! You've forgotten the timing of certain occurrences and SCOTUS decisions that put the lie to your horseshit, Tex!

Oh right, a federal entity deciding, no conflict of interest there. LMAO

Great dodge to avoid responding to the direct question along with the conundrum of your creation and the timing issue. You're a brave soul, Tex!

 

[Debra K]

Underline the part above that says "the supremacy if (sic) the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states." It says NO SUCH THING. Thus, you should identify which clause you are allegedly relying upon so the reader may correct your error.

I think you're misconstruing "the Laws of the United States". The United States is the federal government. Federal laws are set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please clarify.

So you don't understand that "in pursuance thereof", is a limiting factor. They are only supreme in the laws made pursuant to the Constitution itself, they forfeit supremacy when a law is not pursuant to the Constitution. Of course the supreme court has been complicit in allowing them to do otherwise.

Give me an example of a United States law that was NOT "made in pursuance thereof." I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.

How about a law to regulate commodities that were never bought or sold and never crossed a State line, in fact they never left the property where they were grown.

Show me in the commerce clause where that could be considered Constitutional.

I think you're referring to Wickard v. Filburn. Here's what the supreme court said about the reach of the commerce clause power:

"[T]he reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power."

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (citing United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119).

I didn't ask for a defective supreme court decision, I asked you to point out in the source document, the Constitution, where the feds were granted that power.

You say its "defective," but it has never been overruled. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has enormous power under the Commerce Clause and its enumerated powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Note, however, that the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Although the Commerce Clause has been characterized as "Congress can do anything it wants clause," there are cases to be found where the Courts ruled that Congress exceeded its powers.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

The United States of America did not give its consent to have its military property (Fort Sumter) taken from its dominion and control nor to have South Carolina or any other state secede from the union. It was an insurrection by armed rebels.

Full Definition of rebellion

1. 
   1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
   
   
2. 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

They had no authority once that territory was peacefully withdrawn from their jurisdiction. Just like the former soviet union had no authority over the countries that withdrew from their union.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They most certainly did commit Treason...upon firing upon the U.S. And it was a big mistake to not hang quite a few of the leaders afterwards.

How do you commit treason against a country you had withdrawn from?

The Constitution prohibits secession via the Supremacy Clause.

Bullshit. The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

lolol, where is that enumerated?

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

Which are only supposed to be written in the furtherance of the Constitution itself, to carry out the enumerated powers granted to the feds, by who, oh right, the STATES.

Once again you're hawking your agenda.

We have a supreme court that can strike down federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise those laws are the supreme law of the land.

 

[OKTexas]

Amendment X

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States. And the State used the democratic process to secede.

Are you freaking serious? Amendment X was the EXCUSE of the secessionists to rebel; States Rights was the bogus excuse to color the claim. Those States joining the US voluntarily ceded a portion of the sovereignty to join the union and accepted the Constitution as written.

Amendment X is about EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED powers of the Federal and the subordinate States. There can be found no authority in the Constitution where the federal has the power to expel a troublesome State, such as Tejas, so how the fuck does a subordinate power have that power to exercise it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Tex!

As the 10th states, the State are only subordinate in the areas where THEY granted power to the feds, no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union.

And EXACTLY where can that be ascertained in either the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision? You're forgetting about the chicken and egg conundrum you've created with your silly argument! You've forgotten the timing of certain occurrences and SCOTUS decisions that put the lie to your horseshit, Tex!

Oh right, a federal entity deciding, no conflict of interest there. LMAO

Great dodge to avoid responding to the direct question along with the conundrum of your creation and the timing issue. You're a brave soul, Tex!

That was no dodge, the supreme court ruled after the civil war that the States had no right to succeed, do you find that surprising, I don't. I will note however that the supreme court never spoke on the subject prior to the war. In fact Lincoln made a brief attempt to negotiate the souths return to the union, even said he would allow them to keep their slaves. The fact is the feds are a creation of the States and if they so chose they can abolish the federal government at will.

 

[OKTexas]

So you don't understand that "in pursuance thereof", is a limiting factor. They are only supreme in the laws made pursuant to the Constitution itself, they forfeit supremacy when a law is not pursuant to the Constitution. Of course the supreme court has been complicit in allowing them to do otherwise.

Give me an example of a United States law that was NOT "made in pursuance thereof." I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.

How about a law to regulate commodities that were never bought or sold and never crossed a State line, in fact they never left the property where they were grown.

Show me in the commerce clause where that could be considered Constitutional.

I think you're referring to Wickard v. Filburn. Here's what the supreme court said about the reach of the commerce clause power:

"[T]he reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power."

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (citing United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119).

I didn't ask for a defective supreme court decision, I asked you to point out in the source document, the Constitution, where the feds were granted that power.

You say its "defective," but it has never been overruled. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has enormous power under the Commerce Clause and its enumerated powers are supplemented by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Note, however, that the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Although the Commerce Clause has been characterized as "Congress can do anything it wants clause," there are cases to be found where the Courts ruled that Congress exceeded its powers.

That's exactly why Abbott wants the Amendment. To limit the interstate commerce to, oh no, interstate commerce and not ever possible activity that may or may not affect it. If you go by the precedent set by Wickard the feds can stop you from having a vegetable garden, do you really think that was the founders intent?

 

[koshergrl]

This democracy does not work for many conservatives any more, thus the misguided attempts by Republicans to capture state legislatures and then gerrymander themselves so they never lose elections and enact voter suppression laws.

And we've been hearing this growing demand for a 'Constitutional Convention' to change the Constitution because it also works against them.

Conservatives you are slowly being ratcheted out of being able to win national elections. Not because of any design, but simply because the demographics are changing and there are alot of people that you daily disparage that are getting to vote.

So either you have to change and start accepting people, or relegate yourselves to minority political status.

Your choice.

The demographics have changed. Now instead of a Constitutional Republic, we are a Tyranny.

I'm not going to accept it. Only cowards accept that shit.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We have a supreme court that can strike down federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise those laws are the supreme law of the land.

The usual nonsense from the usual nonsense hawkers (did somebody mention "pushing an agenda"?).

If Congress passed a law saying we would now have three Presidents and two Vice Presidents, and the Prez signed it, that law would be immediately unconstitutional. We wouldn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us so.

But our brethren of the southpaw persuasion don't want us deciding for ourselves that something is unconstitutional, because there is too much chance we'll realize that most of their entire agenda is unconstitutional. So they try to get us to accept that we are stupid and incapable of making decisions, and make us wait until some "higher authority" (put in place by them, of course) tells us a filtered version of what it says, and accept that instead.

 

[OKTexas]

How do you commit treason against a country you had withdrawn from?

The Constitution prohibits secession via the Supremacy Clause.

Bullshit. The supremacy clause only applies to enumerated powers.

lolol, where is that enumerated?

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

Which are only supposed to be written in the furtherance of the Constitution itself, to carry out the enumerated powers granted to the feds, by who, oh right, the STATES.

Once again you're hawking your agenda.

We have a supreme court that can strike down federal laws deemed unconstitutional. Otherwise those laws are the supreme law of the land.

Wait just a damn minute, what about this portion of the supremacy clause " anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.". According to this the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about it, so where does the court get the balls to defy it? Doesn't that mean that DOMA was totally enforceable regardless of what the court says, just because the court didn't find it constitutional doesn't mean a damn thing, since anything in the Constitution that is repugnant to the supremacy clause is void?

Let's see what notwithstanding means.

not·with·stand·ing
[ˌnätwiTHˈstandiNG, ˌnätwiT͟HˈstandiNG]

PREPOSITION

1. in spite of:
   "notwithstanding the evidence, the consensus is that the jury will not reach a verdict" ·
   despite · in spite of · regardless of · for all

ADVERB

1. nevertheless; in spite of this:
   "she tells us she is an intellectual; notwithstanding, she faces the future as unprovided for as a beauty queen"
   synonyms: nevertheless · nonetheless · even so · all the same ·
   although · even though · though · in spite of the fact that

According to that once a law is passed it's good to go, in spite of the Constitution, right? You can't have it both ways, are the federal laws supreme or not?