ROFLMAO! Logic? You insist on such an asinine premise that the proof that the federal Constitution is not paramount can be found ONLY in that Constitution itself... and then accuse me of denying logic?
By your line of reasoning, people in California must stand by and be passively murdered even if their is a firearm within reach because government didn't give them 'permission' to defend themselves with it.
BTW - repeating a previous post and changing the text doesn't legitimatize an already disproved assertion..
-----
It was intended to keep any level of gov't from encroaching on our rights to life liberty and property.
Within federal jurisdiction, yes. Not the entire country. That's what the State Constitutions are for.
In January 1800, the entire House went to the state legislature of Virginia. Both Virginia and Kentucky had petitioned the new federal government that the recent Alien and Sedition Act was unconstitutional.
Madison wrote the report: James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
The resolution declares, first, that "it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties;" in other words, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution; and that the Constitution is a compact to which the states are parties. Clear as the position must seem, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution, and from that alone, the committee are not unapprised of a late doctrine which opens another source of federal powers, not less extensive and important than it is new and unexpected. The examination of this doctrine will be most conveniently connected with a review of a succeeding resolution. The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking that, in all the contemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that 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."
If the federal government acts outside it's jurisdiction, those acts are nullified by the Constitution itself.
Its the way it was designed.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
-----
When States insisted that it did not, civil war settled the issue militarily, and then the 14th was enacted to settle the issue constitutionally.
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
LOL! So much for force being 'Constitutional'.
-----
Obviously, some here think it is still not settled.
And you've bounced from the original separation of church and State' subject of the thread to a right to keep and bear arms to a civil war thread, yet you cannot show me ONE thing outside the US Constitution ITSELF that proves it's supremacy (outside its Constitutionally enumerated boundaries) over the States that created it .
Not a Federalist or Anti-Federalist paper, court opinion...NOTHING!
And I'm STILL waiting on you showing me one instance of a California homeowner being prosecuted for defending his home with a firearm.
So either contribute something tangible to the discussion or be gone, junior.
The choice is yours.
ROFLMAO! Logic? You insist on such an asinine premise that the proof that the federal Constitution is not paramount can be found ONLY in that Constitution itself...
The words of our constitution are not proof to you? That's illogical; -- sorry bout that.
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.
The Articles intent is self evident from its 'bold' wording.
It was intended to keep any level of gov't from encroaching on our rights to life liberty and property.
Within federal jurisdiction, yes. Not the entire country.
The wording of Article VI proves you wrong. 'State laws & constitutions notwithstanding', -- the US Constitution is our supreme law.
That's what the State Constitutions are for. If the federal government acts outside it's jurisdiction, those acts are nullified by the Constitution itself. Its the way it was designed.
If State laws act to infringe on our liberties, those acts are nullified by the Constitution itself. Its the way it was designed.
-- When States insisted that it did not, civil war settled the issue militarily, and then the 14th was enacted to settle the issue constitutionally.
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
Your cited opinion obviously never took into account the clear words of Article VI.
Obviously, some here think it is still not settled.
And you've bounced from the original separation of church and State' subject of the thread to a right to keep and bear arms to a civil war thread,
Not at all, as they all concern what you claim is a power of the State; -- to ignore our rights in the writing of State or local laws. --- That power is prohibited by Article VI, the 10th, and the 14th amendments.
yet you cannot show me ONE thing outside the US Constitution ITSELF that proves it's supremacy (outside its Constitutionally enumerated boundaries) over the States that created it .
The US Constitution ITSELF proves it's supremacy. What more need be said?
Not a Federalist or Anti-Federalist paper, court opinion...NOTHING!
Everybody has opinions. But we the people have a Constitution worth defending against infringements. You disagree? - So be it.
So either contribute something tangible to the discussion or be gone, junior.
The choice is yours.
I'm somehow 'junior' to you? Get a grip.