I have addressed this several times. If the fed gov legally passes a law that it is legally entitled to pass (raising taxes for the army)then it is the law of the land. The supremacy clause does not say that the fed gov may pass any law that it chooses. The suprem cl does not in any way address, modify, expand, contract, or define JURISDICTION. And jurisdiction is what we are talking about. PLEASE answer the following q's. I have no idea why nobody will touch these.
1. If the BOR was intended to apply to the states, why did we have the inc. doctrine some 80 years after the cons came into being?
2. Why does the 1st amend say "CONGRESS shall make no law"?
3. Why did VA and others have state supported churches well after the cons came into being?
4. Did you not read the quotation from Barron v. Baltimore posted by that other guy?
5. If you disagree with that ruling, you still must accept as historical fact that for 80 years, the FED GOV, the Supreme Court, AND the state govs operated under the assumption that the BOR did not apply to the states. Were they all wrong for 80 years?
And address James Madison...
In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
James Madison, Federalist 39 (emphasis in original
True.
. "The suprem cl does not in any way address, modify, expand, contract, or define JURISDICTION.
False. As an example, the laws that Congress passed concerning the Migratory Bird Act in 1918 (based on treaties) passed jurisdiction from the state government to the federal government. The question is, though, were those laws made in pursuance to the supreme law -- did those laws infringe upon the right of a hunter to kill a migratory bird? Before the treaty, you could kill a migratory bird, but not after.
One could argue that the Act did not violate gun rights, but only regulated what you could shoot at. So why did Congress value the life of a migratory bird and pass a law against killing them and not pass a law against killing a person? (Unless it was a federal employee). Because of the 'offenses against the laws of nations' clause, as the birds were trans-national creatures.
But the Bird Kill Act was only the beginning. The fedguv has completely altered the jurisdictional playing field through various devices. Treaties, Commerce clause, 'compelling interest' BS, Welfare clause, ad infinitum. And of course, the jurisdictional playing field was tilted with the 14th Amendment when the federal overlay and federal citizenship was created.
At present, I can't think of one square inch of ground in the U.S. where the fedguv does not have some input over its use or development. State gummints traded its sovereignty for a fist full of dollars.
"And jurisdiction is what we are talking about.
"PLEASE answer the following q's. I have no idea why nobody will touch these.
1. If the BOR was intended to apply to the states, why did we have the inc. doctrine some 80 years after the cons came into being?
Somebody more familiar with that doctrine can answer. I read somewhere that it was fraudently imposed and noboby came against it.
2. Why does the 1st amend say "CONGRESS shall make no law"?
Looks to me like the founders didn't want the federal government to censor speech or get involved in regulating religion. Not sure it worked out right, as 'speech' is being re-defined continually by the courts and religion is being subsidized (faith-based stuff) and is being regulated by the IRS. Hey, where there's a will, there's a way. Something the fedguv has proven over and over with other regulations and powers over municipalities through treaty laws.
"3. Why did VA and others have state supported churches well after the cons came into being?"
I believe they were grandfathered in. According to what I read, some states wouldn't ratify the Federal constitution without that temporary provision. Could be wrong.
"4. Did you not read the quotation from Barron v. Baltimore posted by that other guy?"
Don't remember. What was the essence of it?,
"5. If you disagree with that ruling, you still must accept as historical fact that for 80 years, the FED GOV, the Supreme Court, AND the state govs operated under the assumption that the BOR did not apply to the states. Were they all wrong for 80 years?
Personally, I think if the founders wanted the doctrine of incorporation operational from the beginning, they would have said so in very explicit terms so there would have been no mis-understanding or mis-interpretation later on. I don't think it entered their mind, as the Constitution was written to be understood by the un-educated as well. With no hidden nuances.
"And address James Madison... In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. James Madison, Federalist 39 (emphasis in original
Yes, objects, not subjects. The states are subject to the people. The federal government is subject to the states (or at least they were before the 17th Amendment), and the people are subject to a jury of its peers who judge the law and the facts.
My, how things have changed and gotten out of hand. That's why we are involved in restoring our Constitution. It can only be done (peacefully) by placing qualified people in government. We've strayed from first principles for over 200 years. Let's hope it doesn't take that long to get back to basics.
I apologize if I was not specific enough for your questions. I'm more of a conceptual person that a detail guy. ;>