[inquest]

I replied in detail, refuting your comment.

Well, not quite. But this was the point that I was referring to, that you didn't deal at all:

tp: The supremacy clause causes the US Constitution to be binding on the State Governments.

i: Yet you've acknowledged that there are clauses that apply only to the feds despite no explicit language to that effect. Get back to me when you've figured out how to reconcile those two positions.

You only claimed that it wasn't "necessary" to answer it. I'll let the reader decide if that's true.

'Nighty nite, don't let reality bite'.

Thanks. With you, that's pretty much the last thing I have to worry about.

[tpaine]

inquest wrote:
There's been quite a lot of misunderstanding as to the supremacy clause. It has no effect on the applicability of any of the other provisions of the Constitution.


______________________________________

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


______________________________________


The supremacy clause causes the US Constitution to be binding on the State Governments.
The States are restricted by the BOR because the supremacy clause binds the judges in every state to follow what's in the Constitution.
--- The BOR's and all Amendments are intergal parts of the Constitution... They therefore became restrictive on the States.
The 9th & 10th are clear.
The Ninth says that the peoples unemumerated rights cannot be denied or violated.
Thus the 10ths powers, both Federal, -- and those reserved to the States, -- cannot be used to violate the enumerated or unenumerated rights of the people.
-- A simple concept our 'states rights' contingent just can't accept.
Why is that?
208 tpaine


______________________________________

Yet you've acknowledged that there are clauses that apply only to the feds despite no explicit language to that effect.

Get back to me when you've figured out how to reconcile those two positions.
211 inquest


______________________________________


The 10th Amendment says, in explicit language, that there are powers delegated to the US government, and those that are prohibited to the States.

No 'reconciliation' is needed of that clear position.

Thus the 10ths powers, both Federal, -- and those reserved to the States, -- cannot be used to violate the enumerated or unenumerated rights of the people.

Get back to me when you work up a valid counterpoint, inquest.
212

______________________________________


You only claimed that it wasn't "necessary" to answer it. I'll let the reader decide if that's true.
-inquest-


______________________________________


Yep, the reader can easily decide the truth, -- from the above exchange, -- that you've lost it once again.

The clear words of our Constitution are irrefutable, inquest. -- Which always leaves the question; -- why do you try?

What is your 'game'?