Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Eat a bag of dicks. Or in your case, another bag of dicks. You simply can’t suck enough.
As I agree with you that we are not behaving in conformity with the commands and the restrictions of the Constitution.Yes Constitution was written to create a very specific government (or one with multiple specific purposes).
The Constitution is not supreme in those areas not enumerated (or so Madison wrote.....we certainly have not behaved that way).
And, in general, I agree with your description of the Supremacy Clause.
The particular troll I was addressing is beneath contempt. He is uneducable. He is in fact hostile to it.
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)).
lawliberty.org
Madison wrote a reply to a friend where he said look to the ratifiers for meanings , and not to the clerks. (Not his exact words ) lolYes, 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.
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)).
There are those among us who know that you're telling it straight but they will lie here and elsewhere because the truth doesn't fit their agenda. You're doing a great job on the topic of the thread but your goals may be a bit lofty - more than your audience can assimilate.No need to be so crass.
It would be great if we make the discussion educational.
Your problem is with the wrong phrase in the constitution. The issue here is that the general welfare clause and the commerce clause have been reinterpreted by the courts to mean anything whatsoever. Creating and consuming a product 100 percent on your own land and never engaging in ANY activity with another person has been interpreted as being covered under commerce.
When you interpret words like commerce and, even worse, general welfare that loosely there just is no area of life that the feds are not granted power over.
If it was only taken that way in modern governance.I recently posted writings from both Hamilton and Madison on the general welfare clause. It was intended as a limitation of power, not a grant of power. When the government taxes, borrows, spends, or exercises any of the other enumerated powers, the general welfare clause says that whatever they do must be to the benefit (welfare) of the nation generally rather than to a specific geographic, political, or other entity. No more, no less than that.
Wrong. There was a recent thread here where one poster, I don't remember his name, insisted that any law the Congress passed and the President signed, is automatically constitutional. I think very few people here understand the Constitution at all, and especially the Supremacy Clause.
Thank you to the OP for demonstrating great understanding on this.
If you follow the Hamiltonian view - which most leftists do - Congress only need the general welfare clause and the elastic clause.Some seem to think it is carte blanche for the federal government to do whatever it wants.
That isn't the case.
That's Clayton.Wrong. There was a recent thread here where one poster, I don't remember his name, insisted that any law the Congress passed and the President signed, is automatically constitutional.
If you follow the M14 Shooter view, which only idiots do, then all Congress needs is to pass any law and get some court to say it's OK and they can take any right they wish.If you follow the Hamiltonian view - which most leftists do - Congress only need the general welfare clause and the elastic clause.
You believe the same thing. You believe that just because the Court said gun bans are legal that they're constitutional.That's Clayton.
Constitutiomal until overturned, state or federal law.
Now, ask him why he believes the most recent abortion law out of TX is constitutional.
If you follow the M14 Shooter view, which only idiots do, then all Congress needs is to pass any law and get some court to say it's OK and they can take any right they wish.
