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!
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.
"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.
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?”
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.
Personally I cannot fault Lincoln for his defence of The Union, despite my possibly extreme opinions on behalf of individual rights. And I'm a 'Carolina boy'. I remain convinced that the supremecy of the Federal Government was necessary if only to ensure peace and equanimity between the States, beneath a National banner. Problem is, blatant and weakly curtailed power never diminishes... it grows more powerful. That's well established.
If the Supreme Court were to decide tomorrow that children may be eaten, children will be eaten. Doesn't matter what Utah thinks. If nationwide educational busing is mandated by Congress... it is so, even if Georgia demurs. The real question is not IS the Federal Government supreme... but SHOULD it be. And as has been competently explained in previous posts... that's a dicey question.
In constitutional theory, no. In brute force practice, yes. That was one of the big developments from the Civil War.
Perhaps it's a question one could have asked Sherman on his march to the sea.
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
Supreme Federal? Sure. By the Constitution? No, by all the guns they have over us.
1) If a democracy then the federal gov't is boss and the states are just clients states..
2) If a republic then the states are boss and the federal gov't exists as a client to the states..
Actually the U.S. is somewhere between the two options.. Thats exactly why the polarization felt by both sides.. Some mentioned the civil war as culprit.. and would be partially correct.. State sovereignty took a big hit then(civil war) and was never fully restored.. It all would be academic if most knew the difference between a democracy and this unique republic WE have/had.. They don't.. Thats why the public schools STOPPED teaching civics long ago, expessly to confuse this issue..
Democracy is the pre-cursor to socialism, ALWAYS. Thats why there are no democracys on this earth that are NOT socialist countrys.. Socialism COMES from democracy not the other way around. Socialism is merely a symptom of democracy.. OUR republic stands in direct opposistion to socialism because of our Constitution.. Confusion on "these" issues is the source of the political fog present in America today.. Marx and Lenin knew it too as did the Soviet Union(generally).. Thats why we LOST the cold war ideologically .. to say we did'nt is to stand in direct opposistion to the facts.. The Communist Manifesto has been almost completely realized in URP and almost in America too, missing a few minor details.. Most don't even know there was even such a thing as the Communist Manisfesto or what is was or said...
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx
NOTE**- ALL Democracy sucks. Democrats are FOR us being a democracy. And not a few republicans are for the U.S. being democracy too.. Conservative, liberal, for "values", 'abortion" and more "issues" are all diversions from THIS issue.. Morphing the U.S. into becomeing a democracy is the plan and is espionage at the highest levels of government. Sad to say it is working too..
What kind of hack is this judge? To totally misinterpret the Supremacy clause is mindboggling? Is this a political appointee who never spent a day in law school in his life? You have to wonder if some of these judges have ever even studied the law.