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.
No. I said the State and federal government has their own spheres of operation
"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
--Patrick Henry
-----
Opinions are not facts.
Well, since the opinions are from the men WHO WROTE the Constitution, I'd think they would have a much better idea of its functions and purpose than you would.
The FACT is that, in your 'opinion' their words are meaningless...but your 'opinion' doesn't make it a 'fact'.
You deride the information given, yet still offer nothing of your own.
-----
You're simply in denial that the supremacy clause exists, as it is written;
LOL!
I've acknowledged the clause repeatedly and affirmed the federal government is 'supreme' ONLY when it operates within its enumerated duties.
Anytime it operates outside those SPECIFIC duties, it becomes an unconstitutional act.
-----
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.
The fact that Congress is named in the First amendment means all the Amendments have to do with Congress and not the States.
The States operate within a CIVIL jurisdiction and the Constitution is a purely STATUTORY instrument.
That's WHY no 'right to life' appears in the federal Constitution, but that right DOES appear in the State Constitutions.
Do you know why the legislature is listed before the President or the judiciary?
Do you know why the federal government has 'powers', but the States have 'rights'?
-----
I'm somehow 'junior' to you? Get a grip.
No comment from you concerning the fact that the laws of the States do, indeed, 'withstand' the supremacy clause.
STILL no sources.
Still no instances of a homeowner in California prosecuted for shooting a burglar DESPITE no RKBA in that's State's Constitution.
You contention that the federal government can force California to acknowledge the RKBA is hollow simply because if it COULD, it would have done so by now.
On my question as to WHY the States must have their own Constitutions since you believe the federal Constitution is 'supreme' your reply because they 'have to'.
Still no evidence of any kind to support your assertions.
Just "Blah, blah, blah... because I say so."
The really ridiculous part is that you don't even know enough about Constitutional structure to tell a declaratory clause from a restrictive clause or realize the modern definition of a Republic is vastly different than the intention of the Founders.
Have you even read Montesquieu? He was the second-most quoted source of the Founders, you know-
Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.
THE SPIRIT OF LAWS Book VI By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu
-----
So... Sorry I referred to you as 'junior'.
Your lack of evidence and rational debate proves you're obviously undeserving of such a lofty position.
Good day.