Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
So how do you reconcile Article VI, Clause 2 with that gem of yours?

The clause in question:

Article VI. - The United States
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.

George Tucker's annotated version of Blackstone-Volume 1 — Appendix
Note D
[Section 18 - Miscellaneous Provisions (cont.)]
The most satisfactory answer seems to be, that the powers entrusted to the federal government being all positive, enumerated, defined, and limited to particular objects; and those objects such as relate more immediately to the intercourse with foreign nations, or the relation in respect to war or peace, in which we may stand with them; there can, in these respects, be little room for collision, or interference between the states, whose jurisdiction may be regarded as confided to their own domestic concerns, and the United States, who have no right to interfere, or exercise a power in any case not delegated to them; or absolutely necessary to the execution of some delegated power. That, as this control cannot possibly extend beyond those objects to which the federal government is competent, under the constitution, and under the declaration contained in the twelfth article, so neither ought the laws, or even the constitution of any state to impede the operation of the federal government in any case within the limits of it's constitutional powers. That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.

State Constitutions

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

***

CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

***

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ARTICLE. 1. Declaration of Rights
Sec. 11. Right to keep and bear arms; civil power supreme.
2. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power; No standing army shall be maintained by this State in time of peace, and in time of War, no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

***

All the states have similar clauses. Look them up for yourself.

FYI- legal definitions
(http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com):
civil law
3: the law established by a nation or state for its own jurisdiction

military law
law enforced by military rather than civil authority

Well...since the STATES are CIVIL authorities and the federal government is a MILITARY authority, I believe that answers your very snidely asked question quite well.

-------

How can laws passed under the Constitution supercede local laws if the Congress's legislative authority begins and ends with DC?

That's the point, as long as the government abides by the Constitution, they can't. The States created the federal government NOT the other way around!

Look- I enjoy a rousing debate as much as the next person, but if you stop addressing me in such an insulting and condescending manner this conversation has come to an end.

160 posted on 05/11/2006 10:17:20 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I will hold my government to the intent of the Founders...whether it likes it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan
but if you don't stop

(rolls eyes)

163 posted on 05/11/2006 12:22:10 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I will hold my government to the intent of the Founders...whether it likes it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: MamaTexan

The states did not create the US. The US was created by the People, acting through their representitives (As Continental Congress) and updated the US government with the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.

Washington was the 17th President. As he took his oath, the 16th stood next to him, though the 16th president has been elected by the terms of the Confederation.

The People! Because of that, Webster accepted financial support from Southern benefactors, just as Calhoun accepted funds from Western supporters.

One country.


255 posted on 05/12/2006 11:09:08 PM PDT by donmeaker (Burn the UN flag publicly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson