For 'Laws of any State to the Contrary', see post #11.
-----
See? You make the same assertion over and over with nothing BUT that assertion to back it up.
-----
Everybody has opinions. But we the people have a Constitution worth defending against infringements. You disagree? - So be it.
Ah, the old you-disagree-with-me-so-you-must-be-against-the Constitution argument.
Freepers USED to source the documents to support their assertions, now the intellectual argument consist of 'because I say so'.
How lame.
-----
You can jump up & down about the 'law of the land 'clause all you like. It won't change the meaning:
Our national constitution having committed to us the management of the national concerns with foreign States and powers, it is our duty to take care that all the rights which they ought to enjoy within our Jurisdiction by the laws of nations and the faith of treaties remain inviolate. And it is also our duty to provide that the essential interests and peace of the whole confederacy be not impaired or endangered by deviations from the line of public faith into which any of its members may from whatever cause be unadvisedly drawn. Let it be remembered that the thirteen Independent Sovereign States have by express delegation of power, formed and vested in us a general though limited Sovereignty for the general and national purposes specified in the Confederation. In this Sovereignty they cannot severally participate (except by their Delegates) nor with it have concurrent Jurisdiction, for the 9th Article of the confederation most expressly conveys to us the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on war and peace, and of entering into treaties and alliances .
When therefore a treaty is constitutionally made ratified and published by us, it immediately becomes binding on the whole nation and superadded to the laws of the land, without the intervention of State Legislatures. Treaties derive their obligation from being compacts between the Sovereign of this, and the Sovereign of another Nation, whereas laws or statutes derive their force from being the Acts of a Legislature competent to the passing of them. Hence it is clear that Treaties must be implicitly received and observed by every Member of the Nation; for as State Legislatures are not competent to the making of such compacts or treaties, so neither are they competent in that capacity, authoritatively to decide on, or ascertain the construction and sense of them.
Document 3
John Jay, Continental Congress
13 Apr. 1787Journals 32:177--84
(FYI- In 1789, Washington appointed John Jay Chief Justice of the new Supreme Court)
-----
The law of the land clause applies ONLY to those powers ALREADY enumerated by the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to impose the federal Bill of Rights on the States, nor does the 14th Amendment give it that power:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
The 'limits' of US jurisdiction can be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
You are not 'born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction' unless you're born in a port, fort, arsenal or the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.
-----
'Congress shall make no law' means Congress...NOT the legislatures of the States.
Don't believe me? Fine.
But do yourself and your country a favor, man...
educate yourself!
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.
Ah, the old you-disagree-with-me-so-you-must-be-against-the Constitution argument.
You can't deny that you favor States having the power to infringe on some of our rights in the bill of rights; -- so there you go..
Freepers USED to source the documents to support their assertions, now the intellectual argument consist of 'because I say so'. How lame.
You have the opinion that states have the power to ignore the US Constitution, and you quote other opinions to back you up. How lame. --- Opinions are not facts.
The law of the land clause applies ONLY to those powers ALREADY enumerated by the Constitution.
Weird theory. -- The fact is that the clauses that follow, -- as well as the amendments that follow the supremacy clause, -- are all affected by that principle.
Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to impose the federal Bill of Rights on the States, nor does the 14th Amendment give it that power: --
You're simply in denial that the supremacy clause exists, as it is written; -- and that people have the rights [ rights not to be "infringed" "abridged" "deprived" or "denied"] described in the Amendments to the US Constitution. -- Incredible claim.
'Congress shall make no law' means Congress...NOT the legislatures of the States.
The fact that Congress is named in the 1st's establishment clause does not mean that other levels of federal, state or local governments can infringe upon the peoples rights enumerated [or unenumerated] in the rest of the amendments.
Don't believe me? Fine.
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.