The Misunderstood Supremacy Clause

[HikerGuy83]

The Supremacy Clause was put in the USConstitution to ensure that federal law would not have to compete with state law......

within the limited purview of the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution.

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.

This is consistent with history leading up to the ratification of the constitution and the way the USConstitution was presented to the states at the time.

When considered in light of Federalist 45 (where Madison clearly states the powers of the federal government are FEW and DEFINED), then "in Pursuance thereof" helps clarify that:

Any law congress passes in attempting to accomplish it's purposes as described in the USConstituiton are supreme. But if federal law wonders past the fenceline, then the clause has no application.

Some seem to think it is carte blanche for the federal government to do whatever it wants.

That isn't the case.

 

[excalibur]

It doesn't mean white supremacy? Damn!

 

[HikerGuy83]

Often forgotten is that the states formed the federal government and agreed to be governed by it.

Initially, the states for formed a toothless federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

That didn't work and everyone understood that the federal government needed the power to do it's job.

In selling the constitution, Madison was quite clear that it was going to be limited or "specific".

Why would states form a federal government that would essentially make them (the states) meaningless.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It doesn't mean white supremacy? Damn!

At the time, all state and federal governments were pretty much white men.

So, I don't think gender or race had anything to do with it.

 

[excalibur]

At the time, all state and federal governments were pretty much white men.

So, I don't think gender or race had anything to do with it.

It was a joke.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It was a joke.

My bad.

 

[Pellinore]

The Supremacy Clause was put in the USConstitution to ensure that federal law would not have to compete with state law......

within the limited purview of the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution.

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.

This is consistent with history leading up to the ratification of the constitution and the way the USConstitution was presented to the states at the time.

When considered in light of Federalist 45 (where Madison clearly states the powers of the federal government are FEW and DEFINED), then "in Pursuance thereof" helps clarify that:

Any law congress passes in attempting to accomplish it's purposes as described in the USConstituiton are supreme. But if federal law wonders past the fenceline, then the clause has no application.

Some seem to think it is carte blanche for the federal government to do whatever it wants.

That isn't the case.

Yep, absolutely. It doesn't give the Federal Government powers it otherwise doesn't have; it just says that if a federal law says x, and a State law says y, the federal one wins.

It was a big deal during the South Carolina Nullification Crisis during Jackson's time, when South Carolina basically passed a State law saying "So-and-so federal tariff doesn't apply to us." The Supremacy Clause says they can't do that; fortunately, Congress then passed a less harsh tariff which, along with a pretty blatant threat of force, convinced South Carolina to drop the issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supremacy Clause was put in the USConstitution to ensure that federal law would not have to compete with state law......

within the limited purview of the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution.

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.

This is consistent with history leading up to the ratification of the constitution and the way the USConstitution was presented to the states at the time.

When considered in light of Federalist 45 (where Madison clearly states the powers of the federal government are FEW and DEFINED), then "in Pursuance thereof" helps clarify that:

Any law congress passes in attempting to accomplish it's purposes as described in the USConstituiton are supreme. But if federal law wonders past the fenceline, then the clause has no application.

Some seem to think it is carte blanche for the federal government to do whatever it wants.

That isn't the case.

Wrong.

This fails as a strawman fallacy, no one maintains the Article VI of the Constitution gives Congress ‘carte blanche.’

Acts of Congress and rulings by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, state and local laws and the rulings of state courts are subordinate to Federal laws and court rulings (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Wrong.

This fails as a strawman fallacy, no one maintains the Article VI of the Constitution gives Congress ‘carte blanche.’

Acts of Congress and rulings by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, state and local laws and the rulings of state courts are subordinate to Federal laws and court rulings (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Thank you. I’d like to know who makes the claims stated in the OP.

If it was a generalization describing the populace at large, ok. But…

 

[HikerGuy83]

Yep, absolutely. It doesn't give the Federal Government powers it otherwise doesn't have; it just says that if a federal law says x, and a State law says y, the federal one wins.

It was a big deal during the South Carolina Nullification Crisis during Jackson's time, when South Carolina basically passed a State law saying "So-and-so federal tariff doesn't apply to us." The Supremacy Clause says they can't do that; fortunately, Congress then passed a less harsh tariff which, along with a pretty blatant threat of force, convinced South Carolina to drop the issue.

Thank you for the reply.

This issue becomes when the Federal Government passes laws that not aligned with their enumerated (and associated derived or implied powers) powers as defined in the Constitution.

That was the idea, in theory.

What we've done in reality does not line up.

That is why I started the thread out the way I did.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Thank you. I’d like to know who makes the claims stated in the OP.

If it was a generalization describing the populace at large, ok. But…

Which claims ?

What I quoted from the Federalist Papers is a matter of record.

The part about "some" thinking it is cart blanche is true. They do exist. In many cases, they don't understand the concept of federalism and are not familiar with the structure of the Constitution.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Thank you for the reply.

This issue becomes when the Federal Government passes laws that not aligned with their enumerated (and associated derived or implied powers) powers as defined in the Constitution.

That was the idea, in theory.

What we've done in reality does not line up.

That is why I started the thread out the way I did.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” — IX

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Which claims ?

What I quoted from the Federalist Papers is a matter of record.

The part about "some" thinking it is cart blanche is true. They do exist. In many cases, they don't understand the concept of federalism and are not familiar with the structure of the Constitution.

The Federalist (papers), were arguments made by a side in battles over ratification. Right?

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong.

This fails as a strawman fallacy, no one maintains the Article VI of the Constitution gives Congress ‘carte blanche.’

Acts of Congress and rulings by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, state and local laws and the rulings of state courts are subordinate to Federal laws and court rulings (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The Supremacy clause is designed to note that when state laws conflict with federal laws on the matter so legislated, the federal law governs. However, if the federal law is out of bounds, itself, the supremacy clause doesn’t save it.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The Supremacy clause is designed to note that when state laws conflict with federal laws on the matter so legislated, the federal law governs. However, if the federal law is out of bounds, itself, the supremacy clause doesn’t save it.

Can you rephrase this?

 

[BackAgain]

Can you rephrase this?

For you? No. I don’t see the need to try to explain anything to one as poorly-equipped as you are for anything that requires a working brain cell.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

For you? No. I don’t see the need to try to explain anything to one as poorly-equipped as you are for anything that requires a working brain cell.

Thank you. Stay after class

 

[BackAgain]

Thank you. Stay after class

Eat a bag of dicks. Or in your case, another bag of dicks. You simply can’t suck enough.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Federalist (papers), were arguments made by a side in battles over ratification. Right?

Yes, that is correct.

In this case, it was Madison himself who penned #45 and as he was the most familiar with the rationale and reasoning behind the Constitution, he would best be able to speak on particular topics.

 

[HikerGuy83]

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” — IX

Correct.

And a good discussion for another thread which I would be happy to start.

If only to get input form people on how exactly they retain and (more importantly) realize those rights.