To an average Joe like myself, that decision appears to violate the 10th amendment. I'd be interested to read a piece on that decision written by a real Constitutional scholar.
I'm not so sure I'd rely much on the current crop of Constitutional scholars given what passes for scholars these days. The key point in that particular statement IMHO hinges on the constitutionality of any given law. If the law fits within the framework of Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution, there's little doubt it would be the supreme law of the land. When a law falls outside of the enumerated powers, it is void and of no effect. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers would probably be a good starting point to see what some of the Founders thoughts on it were.
“”the 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming that federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.”
To an average Joe like myself, that decision appears to violate the 10th amendment. I’d be interested to read a piece on that decision written by a real Constitutional scholar.”
No kidding that the ruling violates the 2nd amendment, as well as the very clause in question which specifies only laws in pursuance to the Federal Constitution.
As for looking for a Constitutional scholar be very picky who you choose a lot of self-professed Constitutional scholars think the literal wording of the Constitution as understood and agreed upon by the 13 states means nothing.
They would be right if the Federal government is also right in it’s assertion that their own hand picked employees have the final word on the meaning of the Federal Constitution.