Replies

The owners of the teams, think states, can not change those laws or the league rules without a league constitutional convention because the leagues constituion and the bylaws set forth by the commission are the Supreme Law of the League.

See, now you are changing your position. You implied that the constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land, because Article 6, Clause 2 doesn't confine it to that position. To quote your post #142 "So when you say the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (period), you contradict the Constitution."

The problem is that the Article 6, Clause 2 says precisely that the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land. And that it trumps local state constitutions and laws. So which is it, does Article 6, Clause 2 refer to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and indicate that it is given precedence over state laws? Or something else?

States are not constrained by the federal government from expanding individual rights not found in the Constitution of the United States.

Yes they are, assuming such rights as they give contradict the Federal Constitution. Say if a state decided to give people the right to own slaves, that Law would be invalid because it would conflict with the Federal Constitution.

So which is it, does Article 6, Clause 2 refer to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and indicate that it is given precedence over state laws?

Yes, but the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states those powers not delgated to the federal government. Therefore, federal law can only trump state law in questions of those powers specifically enumerated in the federal constitution.

First of all, I am not changing my position at all. My position from the gitgo has been the same. The Supreme Law of the Land is three pronged, the Constitution itself and the laws and treaties enacted by Congress and signed into law by the Executive. But I am happy you now understand that the "notwithstanding" phrase applies to the states, not the federal government.

And second of all, enslaving people is not an expansion of individual rights so your analogy fails miserably. Maybe we should go back to baseball?