Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states. The Bill of Rights is irrelevant. I am discussing the ORIGINAL cons, which was ratified w/out a BOR. Furthermore, the BOR did NOT apply to the states until after the Civil War. The BOR applied ONLY to the Federal Gov. Many of the states, for example, (VA included) actually had state supported churches. If you lived in VA,you paid taxes to support the state church. That simple. Again, the prohibitions in Art 1, sec 10 are indeed thin.
Art VI, para 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 Contrary notwithstanding.
I'm no great connoisseur of the law or anything, but that sure sounds like a "prohibition" to me..
Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states.
You're missing the main point of it. The --- "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" -- is very clear language.
The Bill of Rights is irrelevant.
Our RKBA's is "irrelevant"? Bet me.
I am discussing the ORIGINAL cons, which was ratified w/out a BOR. Furthermore, the BOR did NOT apply to the states until after the Civil War.
You're parroting the Statist line. Art VI proves you wrong.
The BOR applied ONLY to the Federal Gov. Many of the states, for example, (VA included) actually had state supported churches. If you lived in VA,you paid taxes to support the state church. That simple. Again, the prohibitions in Art 1, sec 10 are indeed thin.
Thank you ray, -- its always fun to see another anti-constitutionalist out himself on FR.