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.
Is the Constitution the supreme "Law of the Land" and above the States?
Yes!
Is the Constitution the supreme "Law of the Land" and above the States?
Yes!
Not true.And I would have to retort: "unsubstantiated".
For one, Weaver had a record; he was a known law-breaker.
Vernon Wayne Howell had also crossed the line, and 'broken laws'.
Don't confuse the issue of 'breaking laws', persuing lawful invetigations followed up by a jury trial in your haste to re-write history in order to obtain a goal for your own ends, it's unbecoming and can only lead to your telling lies and spinning the truth ...
Let's say you have a contract with someone to cut your grass every week for $20. That contract is binding on both of you, and you each are assigned an obligation. He is obliged to cut the grass weekly, and you are obliged to give him give him $20 weekly.
That's the deal. Oh, there's a clause in the contract saying that the contract is supreme. No other contracts apply to you or him.
Now, does that mean you have to cut your own grass? According to you it does.
What you say is true enough, but it only works when wielded against small numbers. An attempt to use that might against the People at large would be the means to their end. I would personally seek to aquire much of their weaponry, as would many others, of that I'm positive. Blackbird.
Precisely. That why the Constitution has a Bill of Rights that includes the the Second Amendment.
That’s just what Robert E. Lee, Randy Weaver and David Koresh said!
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
I knew it had to be either you or robert that posted this! Nice diversion on Election Day.
Whatever the result of this thread may be (or not be *lol* ) - don't get so involved as to forget to VOTE !!!
Be well and I'll join this debate at another time . . .
Freeregards,
AAE
The Constitution restricts the powers of government.
Agreed, only if the author means the powers of ALL LEVELS of government in the USA.
The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself.
Who agrees with this "deception"? Who is claiming that any of our various governments have the power to so interpret? The Constitution itself says otherwise in the 10th Amendment.
Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
Meaningless conclusion. The author is just repeating the point shes trying to make.
The powers of the federal government are explicitly limited to only those areas so granted by the states (which created the federal government in the first place). The states remain sovereign and superior in all other areas. It is the theory of dual sovereignty put forth by Madison. The Constitution was written and ratified by the states, and is not a check on the states' powers, but rather the federal government's. To wit:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
[James Madison, The Federalist No. 45]
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[10th Amendment, United States Constitution]
Law breakers both.
Not true. Both men [& their families] were attacked before reasonable attempts were made to arrest them, and bring them to trial, -- as you well know.
Lovely examples for us all to 'emulate' to be sure ...
No one here has set them up as examples to emulate. That's your delusion, _jim.
Why is it 99.999 percent of us have NO problem with 'the law' but these guys did?
Apparently its because they 'dissed' the BATF. It's a little like how you dis our Constitutional rule of law, _jim my boy.
Simple answer: either it was predestination/preordination, or, they strayed just a little TOO FAR over the line and 'broke the law' - which can, and usually does, have consequences in this country ...
Indeed it does.. Yet we have men like you who run about this site showing disdain for our BOR's, who are rarely even chastised for their over the line behavior. Go figure.
And I would have to retort: "unsubstantiated". For one, Weaver had a record; he was a known law-breaker. Vernon Wayne Howell had also crossed the line, and 'broken laws'.
We all do _jim. I'd bet you that any day you go to work you break many 'laws' of one sort or another. It's literally impossible to avoid doing so.
Don't confuse the issue of 'breaking laws', persuing lawful invetigations followed up by a jury trial in your haste to re-write history
How weird _jim. Here you are trying to prove Koresh & Weaver deserved having their families killed for being generic 'law'breakers, in your own haste to rewrite their histories.
in order to obtain a goal for your own ends, it's unbecoming and can only lead to your telling lies and spinning the truth ...
I'm spinning nothing here _jimboy. You're the one with delusions.
"The Constitution restricts the powers of government."
I think this is the main point she was making. My contention as well when I offered the other day that our rights are supreme over the Constitution AND governments.
The big lie is that gummint is saying in essence that its interpretation of the Consitution is the supreme law. Congress and the states give lip service to the pursuancy clause, but ignore its essence -- the fact that laws must be in pursuance to the Constitution, but ignore the fact that the BOR sits on top of the hierarchy of the Constitution.
You admit that an article of our Constitutional contract says that the contract is the supreme law, the laws of any State "notwithstanding", -- yet you claim it doesn't apply to States.
It is simply the document itself (and the laws made in pursuance thereof) that are supreme.
Exactly. "The document itself" is our supreme law, the laws of any State "notwithstanding".
Thus the Constitution and ALL its Amendments apply to the States.
Let's say you have a contract with someone to cut your grass every week for $20.
That contract is binding on both of you, and you each are assigned an obligation. He is obliged to cut the grass weekly, and you are obliged to give him give him $20 weekly.
That's the deal.
Oh, there's a clause in the contract saying that the contract is supreme. No other contracts apply to you or him.
That is not what Article VI 'says' in our Constitution. It says that the Constitution and ALL its Amendments apply to the States.
Now, does that mean you have to cut your own grass? According to you it does.
Bizzare conclusion paulsen. You really do need rest. Go cut your grass.
This comment is not true, proved by your own quote of the 1Oth:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [10th Amendment, United States Constitution]
Thus your conclusion falls apart. Some 'State powers' are checked, -- prohibited by our Constitution.
One such is the power to unreasonably regulate our RKBA's.
It cannot be infringed upon by States. -- Ask paulsen about it once he mows his grass.
Yes. My point was that the constitution is being at best ignored and at worst, downright subverted. Just taking the Second Amendment, one of the more important articles in the Bill of Rights, the left is making great headway in getting the public to believe it’s all about hunting. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The public at large doesn’t even know who Randy Weaver is or what happened to him and they believe Koresh got what was coming to him.
(Sorry...I’m getting started...)
Anyway, “He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither (or words to that effect).” Here’s to the Internet, the last bastion of freedom on the planet (warts and all)!
I have to disagree. The leftists in this country poured through the gates back in the ’40’s, what with Roosevelt’s infatuation with Stalin. “Street theater” will not dislodge them. Strength and honor will.
David Koresh committed no crime. He was assaulted without warning by cattle cars full of BATF agents (the same ones who were at Ruby Ridge).
The federal government literally got away with murder in those two cases, democrats and Republicans alike.
I think you misunderstand. If you see buckets of hot tar being carried through the streets, can the feathers be far behind?
Uh Oh! You just touched the tar-baby. ;>
The federal government literally got away with murder in those two cases, democrats and Republicans alike.
57 MountainPete
______________________________________
Uh Oh! You just touched the tar-baby. ;>
59 Eastbound
______________________________________
_Jim is, of course, FR's tar baby for the federal POV.
Amazing how many there are here, -- that cheer on the federal governments usurptions of our Constitutional rights, just because the Grand Old Party is in [supposed] control at this point in time.
How soon we forget that political fortunes change.
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.