Is the Federal Government Supreme and Above the States?

Sierra Times ^ | Robert Greenslade

[HenryLeeII]

Once again you are wrong, either from ignorance or due to willful misrepresentation. Words have meanings, including the name of our country. "United" and "States" each has meaning, they weren't just randomly chosen and stuck together. States met in convention to work on the Articles of Confederation, and then that framework was scrapped in favor of a Federal Republic under a constitution. I know you think you're impressing others with your pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo, but their is no difference between "The Ratification of the CONVENTIONS of nine States,..." and "ratified upon the consent of nine states." If the Founders wanted the people to be the ones to ratify they would have said so, they wouldn't have specified nine states...they were much smarter than you and wrote in a remarkably straight-forward manner, given the circumstances.

The language of the Preamble (which has no legally-binding language, unlike the Tenth Amendment) is a bow to Madison's concept of dual sovereignty, in which the states are the people and people are the states. Also, that pesky preposition 'of' has meaning, but I'm sure a word of a mere two letters is beneath your attention. They didn't say "We the people, in order to...." they said "We the people OF the United States..."

Another fact that I pointed out in my "short post" (hmmm, is there a complex in hidden in that odd phrase?) is that the states are represented by the Senate. Why else would there be an equal number for each regardless of population? Why was this offered as an inducement to the smaller states who feared being dominated by the Virginia's and New York's? Yeah, that's it, because Delaware wanted to recreate the British Parliament that we just fought and broke away from!

[HenryLeeII]

And why was it that the Northern states went to war to bring back the seceded states? It wasn't to end slavery, so your argument about right or wrong is null and void. Also, this is supposed to be a country of laws, not what individuals think is right or wrong at some point in time.

[HenryLeeII]

correction: their is no = there is no...

[justshutupandtakeit]

Obviously you haven't studied this issue much or you would not be making the errors you are making.

What is "intellectual" about quoting an exact quote? A quote which said EXACTLY what it wanted conveyed. At any rate, the conventions were designed to represent the American people GATHERED in states. Why go to that bother if all that was desired was State approval? Legislatures could do that. Nine states were required so as to not have a small majority but it could have said 10 or 7. But the larger number indicates a higher probability that a majority of the People desired ratification.

People OF merely indentifies WHICH people is referred to NOT the people of Mexico or the people of Canada but the people of the United States. Geez, what a red herring.

Equal representation of the States in the Senate does not refute the fact that the Senate was to represent the long term interest of the Nation. Securing the loyalty of the small states was in that interest of keeping the Union strong and perpetual. Large states agreed that it was in the long term interest to keep the small states in the Union and agreed to this concession.

[HenryLeeII]

Obviously you haven't studied this issue much or you would not be making the errors you are making.

My B.A. is in history, I am published in the field, and have extensive professional experience, as well. So there goes that little theory of your's.

...the conventions were designed to represent the American people GATHERED in states. Why go to that bother if all that was desired was State approval? Legislatures could do that. Nine states were required so as to not have a small majority but it could have said 10 or 7. But the larger number indicates a higher probability that a majority of the People desired ratification.

Wrong (I'm in a hurry here, so this may be a "short post"), because regardless of the number of states specified, there is the possibility that only 50.1% in each state votes in favor of ratification, or it could be that low in one state and 70% in another. The fact remains, there was not a single national vote by the individual; states held elections.

People OF merely indentifies WHICH people is referred to NOT the people of Mexico or the people of Canada but the people of the United States. Geez, what a red herring.

No, we the people knew which people were being referred to. Your contention there is a red herring.

Equal representation of the States in the Senate does not refute the fact that the Senate was to represent the long term interest of the Nation. Securing the loyalty of the small states was in that interest of keeping the Union strong and perpetual. Large states agreed that it was in the long term interest to keep the small states in the Union and agreed to this concession.

The senate was intended to have a stabilizing effect against the feared mobocracy. It represents the state, which is why the body has the vote (as opposed to the House) in such matters as foreign treaties, SCOTUS jurists, etc. In other words, things that affect the states, SINCE THE STATES CREATED THE CONSTITUTION, RATIFIED IT, AND GAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IT LIMITED POWERS!!!!!

[sandydipper]

Personally I could do without the 75,000(+) pages of federal regulations that encompass every part of my life. We are over taxed and over regulated by the Congress pukes.

[TommyDale]

Hey, no fair using the TRUTH here. Everyone knows the "War Between The States" was only about slavery, and the Confederate flag is a racist symbol! How dare you bring up actual facts on a public forum? (/sarcasm)

[justshutupandtakeit]

A degree in History does not make you expert in the era of the Revolution. And I doubt any article you published was dealing with this topic.

Never said anything that conflicts with your statement about the possiblity that a majority of states would not mean a majority of the people or only a small majority agreeing with the ratification. Just said that having a larger number required for ratification increased the probability that a majority of Americans agreed. Who ever said anything about votes by individuals? Not me. Few individuals could even vote, particularly in the South. However, it is true that the elections held for the constitutional conventions were the most representative of any elections of that day.

An exact statement is not a red herring. While a response to a red herring could be a red herring mine is not. It isn't a herring of any color.

Stabilizing effect - long term interest. Six of one half dozen of the other. However, the fact remains that an election of Senators by the people of a state would still mean their concern was to the state. Having the legislatures do it doesn't change that but it does make the long term interests of the states and national more of a concern to a Senator and the longer term ensured that as well. Glad you mentioned treaties and SC appointments more indications that long term interest was the primary concern of the Senate. The House could easily have been allowed to do both or either but while having the same concerns about the members states as the Senators it did not have the longer term outlook given by the longer term of office.

I will not argue that the Senate did have A role in protecting state interests just that that was not its primary role.

[William Terrell]

Wrong. When you were born in a state, you were a citizen of that state. If you were foreign and moved to the United States, you had to move to a state, unles you went to the District of Columbia. Find a digitized copy of Dred Scott v Sanford and search for the word "citizen".

To normalize the naturalization process, Congress could make the rules for the process. However the states awarded citizenship because where you lived was in a state. Besides, if this were not true, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment.

[William Terrell]

Wow. I don't know where to start. You do know that the BOR was a limitation of the power of the national government, don't you, not a grant of rights and immunities to the people and states?

[HenryLeeII]

A degree in History does not make you expert in the era of the Revolution. And I doubt any article you published was dealing with this topic.

My major in history, with a concentration in the colonial and early Federal era's, trumps your minor. I did very well in Constitutional Law 401, and stopped the left-wing-but-fairly-honest professor a few times. My publications have dealt with several topics from the colonial through Civil War era's, and have appeared in nationally- and locally-published journals.

Never said anything that conflicts with your statement about the possiblity that a majority of states would not mean a majority of the people or only a small majority agreeing with the ratification. Just said that having a larger number required for ratification increased the probability that a majority of Americans agreed. Who ever said anything about votes by individuals? Not me. Few individuals could even vote, particularly in the South. However, it is true that the elections held for the constitutional conventions were the most representative of any elections of that day.

I brought up the idea of individuals not voting directly for ratification in a national election, because it disproves your theory that we the people created the Federal government, when in fact, any person who can read can see for himself/herself in the clearly-written Constitution that it was the states that ratified it, or in any history book that state representatives met in Philadelphia to amend the AoC and instead came up with the Const.

An exact statement is not a red herring. While a response to a red herring could be a red herring mine is not. It isn't a herring of any color.

Well, your assertion that the phrase "we the people of the United States" is in the Preamble so we would know which people we're talking about, and not "Canada" or "Mexico" is a red herring given the fact that neither of those was a country in the 1780's. I don't think the British or Spanish governments, respectively, would be much for allowing their colonists to write their own constititutions and create their own governments without their approval. Words and phrases have meanings; the Founders didn't just shove a bunch of words onto a page for no reason. The plainly-stated and extant Tenth Amendment trumps any pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo you can come up with. After a while you will have to admit, like WhiskeyPapa has, that there is no explicit ban on secession and the only way the Union was right was in its battlefield victory.

Stabilizing effect - long term interest. Six of one half dozen of the other. However, the fact remains that an election of Senators by the people of a state would still mean their concern was to the state. Having the legislatures do it doesn't change that but it does make the long term interests of the states and national more of a concern to a Senator and the longer term ensured that as well. Glad you mentioned treaties and SC appointments more indications that long term interest was the primary concern of the Senate. The House could easily have been allowed to do both or either but while having the same concerns about the members states as the Senators it did not have the longer term outlook given by the longer term of office.

Glad you agree with me. The Senate represents the states and is a bulwark against the fear of mobocracy. Hence, it is a stabilizing effect.

I will not argue that the Senate did have A role in protecting state interests just that that was not its primary role.

Well, you need to argue that point with Madison, Hamilton, et al. If there is an equal number of Senators per state regardless of population, and it is a stabilizing factor against the temporal whims of we the people, and Senators nominate judges for the Federal judiciary in their home states, the only logical conclusion is that the Senate represents the states.

[Ohioan]

A worthwhile post. I have long thought that if one were to design a simple test of political intelligence--or rather the aptitude for political understanding, not knowledge of trivia, you would have one of the questions along the point made by this essay. The Federal Government is an Agency, created by the Constitution. When it acts within the scope of its agency, it is entitled to respect--and the Supremacy clause would come into play. When it acts outside the scope of that agency, it is entitled to the contempt that should always be visited upon those who try to usurp power.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[justshutupandtakeit]

I cannot imagine how you could have majored in history concentrating on this period at a major university and come away with false views of the Constitution such as you express. There is no doubt that it was not created by the states nor is there any doubt that its creation and ratification was explicitly taken from the hands of the state governments nor that it was created explicitly to reduce the power of the states. Nor can I imagine any reputable journal publishing such views when they are easily shown to be false.

Lack of individuals voting for ratification in no way proves the constitution was not created by the People. "States" did not ratify it. Conventions held in states ratified it. Such sloppiness in use of terminology would never pass in a major university or reputable journal. It is surprising to see you still attempting to obscure this clear distinction.

The tenth amendment never meant anything other than states had the power to enact local laws, control local police power,etc. It in no way empowers a state to do ANYTHING which impacts the nation as a whole, such as secession. Secession negates the entire logic of the constitution and was not even acceptable to the Articles which repeatedly spoke of a perpetual Union. Thus, the constitution was created with the idea of a "perpetual Union" as an ASSUMPTION not even worthy of discussion. Not one word was spoken at the CC of a "right" of a state to secede and for good reason since making a "more perfect Union" from a perpetual Union could never mean making it less than perpetual. No state ever had the right to secede from the constitution without an amendment allowing it to do so. It is a logical impossiblity if the document meant ANYTHING at all.

BTW the constitution was written knowing the world would be reading it thus, it was necessary to identify FOR ALL TIME and ALL PEOPLE that the "People" was the People of the United States. Thus, my statement was anything but a red herring.

Only one of the aspects of the Senate involves representing States. Senators are UNITED STATES Senators, they are to represent the long term interests of the United States not States though I will admit this is a common misperception often taught by those who know no better. Where did you ever get the idea that Senators nominate judges for the federal judiciary in their home states? Certainly not from the constitution. Power to approve nominations of Judges in no way has anything to do with state interests but long term NATIONAL interests.

[HenryLeeII]

I see the arrogance of your screen name is no accident. You make a lot of pronouncements regarding the Constitution and our nation's founding, but offer nothing to back them up. Your simple arguments are just that: simple.

To wit: Senators are UNITED STATES Senators, they are to represent the long term interests of the United States not States...

If you offered this in a college essay or research paper you would be laughed out of class. United States senators represent their states and the people who elected them (read Madison's writings on dual sovereignty). If this were not the case senatorial elections would be held on a national level as opposed to a state level.

Further non-sense: The tenth amendment never meant anything other than states had the power to enact local laws, control local police power,etc. It in no way empowers a state to do ANYTHING which impacts the nation as a whole, such as secession. Secession negates the entire logic of the constitution and was not even acceptable to the Articles which repeatedly spoke of a perpetual Union.

First of all, the individual states had to divorce themselves (secede) from the Articles of Confederation before they could ratify the Constitution. Secondly, if you have ever read the Tenth Amendment you would know how laughable your above assertion truly is. Let me refresh your memory: 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. Ouch! Nothing there about this being only about enacting local laws (illogical when considering what a FEDERAL REPUBLIC is in the first place), nor is there anything about this regarding secession.

[HenryLeeII]

A worthwhile post. I have long thought that if one were to design a simple test of political intelligence--or rather the aptitude for political understanding, not knowledge of trivia, you would have one of the questions along the point made by this essay. The Federal Government is an Agency, created by the Constitution. When it acts within the scope of its agency, it is entitled to respect--and the Supremacy clause would come into play. When it acts outside the scope of that agency, it is entitled to the contempt that should always be visited upon those who try to usurp power.

Very well put. Thank you...

[justshutupandtakeit]

Any college essay would have plenty of quotations to back up the point. They are not hard to find to anyone interested. But I don't quote or link here for lack of resources. House seats aren't elected on a national basis either. That is what "federalism" is all about.

Anyone who has studied the genesis of the constitution well knows that the 9th and 10th were "feel good" amendments thrown in to mollify the anti-federalists. They have been invisible in the development of constitutional law and have never had any significant bearing on law. Any constitutional authority (sure to be rejected by you) will tell you the same thing. They were essentially palatives to reassure the Slavers that the feds were not going to pass laws against their precious tyranny or impede their tyrannizing of their slaves.

Madison and Hamilton both agreed that the Bill of Rights was totally unnecessary since the constitution never empowered the government to do any of the things prohibited under the BoR. But, in order to win over the doubters and delusional, they promised to attach it. Neither believed for one moment that a State could secede nor did any of the founders NOT EVEN JEFFERSON.

States never "divorced themselves" from the NATION by changing the FORM of Government. Oh, I well know what the 10th says and WHY it was written and secession had NOTHING to do with it. Why don't you show me where that entered into the question since the CC records say not ONE word about secession. Not one. Nor did ANY founder mention secession as a "right" NOT ONE. Ask Andy Jackson what he thought about secession? Had he been around and President in 1861 there would have been traitors hanging from every tree in the South if he had his way.

You don't seriously want to claim that the 9th or 10th really says "A state can destroy the Union whenever it wishes?" Do you? Such a view means that the constitution was and is meaningless since it could never be the law of the land and it also means the definition of Treason is meaningless.

Actually a federal republic is all about the division of power so that states and localities CAN make local laws. What the heck are you talking about?

WRT my screenname. Look in the dictionary under "irony." Though I don't deny being arrogant.

[HenryLeeII]

I don't quote or link here for lack of resources...

Lack of something to quote is more like it.

House seats aren't elected on a national basis either. That is what "federalism" is all about.

House seats represent the citizens of the district from which they are elected.

States never "divorced themselves" from the NATION by changing the FORM of Government. Oh, I well know what the 10th says and WHY it was written and secession had NOTHING to do with it. Why don't you show me where that entered into the question since the CC records say not ONE word about secession.

First of all, any freshman history major would know that there were no "CC [Constitutional convention] records," the only primary source being personal journals kept by Madison primarily. Secession, like slavery, was an issue not dealt with for specific reasons. However, this does not equate with a ban on secession any more than it was a ban on the existence of slavery. Before debating me any further I would advise you to read Madison's writings in The Federalist Papers regarding the voluntary nature of the states entering into the compact known as the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment, along with the Second, are the two Constitutional bulwarks of our existence as a federal republic.

You don't seriously want to claim that the 9th or 10th really says "A state can destroy the Union whenever it wishes?"

Secession does not equate with destroying the Union or even the Constitution. The other states remain, the tenants of the Constitution remain, and the seceded state is left on its own to prosper or to fail.