Posted on 11/02/2004 11:20:24 AM PST by tpaine
2004
While observing the proceedings in a federal District Court, I was taken-back by the blatant arrogance of the judge masquerading as a constitutional officer. The case involved a civil dispute between two corporations. After setting a briefing schedule and reading the opposing attorneys the riot act concerning the conduct of his courtroom, the judge did something that illustrates the extent of the usurpation of power being perpetrated by the federal government. When one of attorneys told the judge he was unavailable for a motion hearing because he was scheduled to be in state court for a murder trial that same day, the judge came out of his chair and told the attorney to remind the state judge of the "supremacy clause" of the United States Constitution. He went on to state that since the federal government is supreme and above the States, the judge in murder case would have to change the date of the trial to accommodate the federal proceedings in his courtroom. If this federal judge had not been a constitutional renegade, he would have never asserted that the federal government is supreme and above the States.
The so-called "supremacy" clause is found at Article VI, Clause 1 and states in part:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land - any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Nowhere in this provision does it state the federal government is supreme and above the States. It simply states that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme.
Alexander Hamilton addressed the extent of this clause in Federalist Essay No. 33:
[I]t is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land - It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution -[Bold not added]
In the New York Convention of 1788 considering ratification of the proposed constitution, Hamilton responded to the criticisms being leveled against this provision:
I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this ¾ that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government. The states, as well as individuals, are bound by these laws: but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent powers, in which they are supreme.
In Hamilton's words we see the principles of limited government and enumerated powers. This clause does not expand federal power; it restricts federal power because that government only exists within the confines of its limited enumerated powers. When the federal government departs from the Constitution and enacts laws outside the scope of its delegated powers, those laws are not "supreme or binding" because the federal government does not exist outside of its limited enumerated powers.
In order for the federal government to be supreme and above the States, it would first have to have the constitutional power to modify or abolish the powers of the States. No such power was granted to the federal government by the Constitution. In fact, since the States created the federal government, they have the power to abolish or amend the powers of their federal government any time they wish.
The amendment process is found at Article V and provides two methods for proposing amendments. Two-thirds of the States [34] can request a Constitutional Convention or Congress [two-thirds of both Houses] can propose amendments. When a proposed amendment is adopted by Congress and submitted to the States for consideration, the States have the exclusive power to accept or reject the proposal and neither Congress nor a majority of the American people have the constitutional authority to over-ride their decision. In addition, if the States call a Constitutional Convention to amend the powers of the federal government, Congress is constitutionally powerless to stop them.
When a proposed amendment is under consideration by the States, it takes a vote of three-fourths of the States [38] to ratify any proposed change. Neither Congress nor a majority of the American people has a vote in this process. Likewise, neither the federal government nor the whole people can override a three-fourths vote of the States. The 38 smallest States, with a minority of the population, can bind the remaining 12 States with a majority of the population. This proves conclusively that federal government is not supreme and above the States. There is another way to read this clause. The Constitution is a compact or contract between the several States. If this clause is read in that context, it reads as follows: the contract between the several States, the Constitution, and all laws and treaties passed pursuant to the contract between the States shall be the supreme law of the land. It is the contract between the several States that is supreme, not the federal government. That government is simply the entity designated by the States to execute the limited functions entrusted to it by the terms of the contract.
Unfortunately, the federal government is using the illusion of supremacy to awe the States and the American people into undue obedience to its unconstitutional dictates. One example is the theft of land within the several States. The federal government cannot constitutionally acquire or exercise any legislative jurisdiction over land within one of the United States unless it complies with the consent requirement enumerated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. To get around this lack of authority, the federal government has used the supremacy clause to invoke condemnation or eminent domain power to take control of the land. It should be remembered that eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty. The term "sovereignty" is interchangeable with the word "supremacy." Before the federal government could claim a general power of supremacy within the several States, it would first have to establish that the States surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government when they adopted the Constitution.
In Federalist essay No. 32, Alexander Hamilton reiterated the principle that the States, under the Constitution, would retain every pre-existing right [power] that was not exclusively delegated to the federal government: An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. [Emphasis not added]
Hamilton noted that the Constitution would establish a "partial union" between the several States. If the States were being consolidated into one nation they would not be delegating powers, they would be surrendering powers. That would include their sovereignty. In reality, the States did not surrender their sovereignty; they only delegated a portion of their sovereign powers to the federal government for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, since the Constitution established a "partial union" between the several States, and the federal government was granted its powers from the States via the Constitution, the federal government cannot be supreme and above the States.
The failure of the States to control their federal government will have dire consequences if it is allowed to continue asserting supremacy over the States. In the New York Ratifying Convention referenced above, Hamilton warned of the consequences if the States ever lost their powers:
The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate.
If the States and the American people do not awaken and assert their supremacy over the federal government, that government will ultimately turn Hamilton's warning into reality.
When a proposed amendment is under consideration by the States, it takes a vote of three-fourths of the States to ratify any proposed change.
Neither Congress nor a majority of the American people has a vote in this process.
Article V does not authorize the legislatures of the "several states" to violate our Constitutions safeguards of individual rights by the amendment process.
Likewise, neither the federal government nor the whole people can override a three-fourths vote of the States. The 38 smallest States, with a minority of the population, can bind the remaining 12 States with a majority of the population.
States cannot 'bind' anyone to amendments that are repugnant to the overall principles of liberty embodied in our Constitution.
This proves conclusively that federal government is not supreme and above the States.
The whole of the Constitution proves that neither the States, nor the Feds, are supreme over "We the People"..
This authors essay is a cleverly disguised piece of agitprop for the statist agenda. The 'States Rights' cause is anti-constitutional, not just anti-fedgov.
In the USA, State's have no rights, only the powers delegated to them by their citizens. Such state powers cannot infringe upon our individual rights.
Feel free to defend your hero.
No!
umm, we lost the Civil War. So the answer is yes.
No! [says eskimo]
Is the Constitution the supreme "Law of the Land" and above the States?
Yes!
People often mistakenly claim that the formation of the USA was wholly part of the very bourgeois assertion of Enlightenment core values. While it is true that our Founders were Men of their era, their inspiration came from something much older, the Magna Carta, a brilliant stroke of genious regarding God given Rights of Men and Rule of Law. Given this notion, there can be no doubt that the intent of the Founders was indeed God given Rights of Men and Rule of Law. For a few short years, their initial vision moved forward, largely unmodified and unchallenged, Marbury Vs. Madison and other tweaks notwithstanding. However, increasingly, the currents of bourgeois will to power, and the tendency of global money power to erode nation states founded on the above principles in favor of trans national expendiency, undermined the original consensus. The urge to place state over all (including the God given Rights of Men *and* Rule of Law!) was not, as some naively assume, limited to Europe. We were tainted by this as well. Herein lies the root of our current problem. No fewer than 40 % of the population essentially do not believe, in their hearts, in God given Rights of Men and in Rule of Law, but in Rights and Rule of Law set forth by the State. Business men like this, because there is "on throat to choke" and a focal point for exerting influence. In order to truly reform ourselves, we seriously need to get back to fundamentals. But I will make a caution here. Any serious effort to do this would meet with INTENSE resistance from business interests and from many amongst the bourgeoisie.
The Constitution was the supreme law long before the Civil War.
--- That fact is one of the reasons we had to fight it.
"Is the Federal Government Supreme and Above the States?"
Of course it is. We really need to wake up in this country. The Constitution is eroded each year by the courts, the final arbiter of which is of course... the Supreme Court, appointed at the Federal level. SHOULD it be? Certainly not!! But until and unless our Constitution is truely upheld as the Law Of The Land (strictly interpreted)... the rulings of our Judicial Branch will be.
Hate it when that happens.
Is the Constitution the supreme "Law of the Land" and above the States?
Yes!"
Works for me. I think the land issue was settled when it was the states that ceded land for Washington, D.C. The feral gummint said, 'thank you very much.' They didn't steal it. Fact is, it was the only land in the union (10 square) they had any jurisdiction over, except for forts, armories, etc., at various locations in the states.
My. How far we have evolved as a free people. < /sarc >
Is the Federal Government Supreme and Above the States?
Sure it is, in those areas delegated to it by the Constitution. Example: the war power. States can't declare war, and they can't keep their own navies and go fight on the high seas. Another example: tarriffs. States can't levy them on international or interstate trade.
Of course the Federal government is supreme and above the States in those areas that the People originally delegated supreme power over the States to the Feds under the Constitution.
And no. No the Federal government is not supreme over the States in those areas that the Constitution does not delegated to it by the Constitution.
Of course, the Constitutional delegation of power is very, very broad indeed, and the real line of what's federal and what isn't is determined by the democratic will of the People, as washed through the political parties, Congress, the Presidency and the courts.
Pick a topic, any topic, and there's overlapping jurisdiction. Usually the Feds can assert supremacy if they need to. Usually they don't. Often there is shared jurisdiction. Example: Murder of a federal agent is murder under state law and a federal crime as well. Even if the People of the State have decided that there shall be no death penalty for murder in that State, the Federal government can apply the Federal death penalty at a facility in that State if the criminal is convicted in Federal Court.
There is no clear-cut answer to the question.
The best short description is to say that the Federal and State governments are each sovereign in their spheres, and the Federal government has the final say in what the boundaries of those spheres are.
Since the Federal government is subject to the will of the electorate just like the State government is, sovereignty in both cases reposes in the People.
Alas, with the War of Northern Aggression wherein Lincoln ostensibly said, “Do what I tell you to do, or I’ll come down there and kill you,” the Several States discovered that they had joined a club from which they could not resign. From that point, all power resides in Washington D.C., unhappily, by the actions of the brand new Republican Party. In recent times, the democrats have abused that power to the extent we observe today.
Lincoln did preserve The Union, but he murdered The Republic. The question is, “Can we get it back?”
bump
Yes, if the states allow it and if the people of the states allow the states to allow it.
That's a lot of allow's, I know, but that's the way it was intended to work.
In truth, it was not a war between the states, or a civil war. It was a war between the Federal Government and the Republic -- the union of states. Loser take all.
But even at this late date, we are not certain who the winner was, as we've been involved in a long-term mission to re-construct the Republic and restore the Constitution. Sometimes we gain, sometimes we lose.
Personally, I think we are on the threshhold of a major change -- for the better or for the worse.
Well put..
Unfortunatly, there are many here at FR that have bought into the Statist 'right' line that States ~must~ have the power to control the individuals private nonviolent behavior.
Then we have all those at DU that have bought into the Statist 'left' line that the Feds ~must~ have the power to control the individuals private nonviolent behavior.
Between the two factions we are being whipsawed into losing ALL of our liberties.
The problem with this analysis (most of which is dead on IMO) is that what is supposed to be is not necessarily the way things are.
The reason is simple. FedGov has massive weaponry, and they are no squeamish in the least in using it. They will kill you and think nothing of it. This gives them a lot of power they otherwise would not have, because if only subconciously, people know it.
Isn't this what we have to thank Lincoln for?
The aftermath of keeping the Union together was that the Fed gov. became the "Supreme Law of the Land" as that judge believes it to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.