States fearing mandates assert rights

The 10th Amendment, and the Constitution as a whole, doesn’t grant rights; it recognizes them and denies local, state and federal government the power to violate said rights.

It denies a lot more to the federal government than to the state and local governments.

The fact remains, -- no one can constitutionally speaking, deny you your rights to life, liberty or property, -- unless you lose them in a court after due process of constitutionally valid law..

One here and one there and you are pretty much left with SCOTUS rulings.

And I don't think anyone could argue, that being an "agent" of what has become a federal beast, CAN they truly make decisions based on Constitutional blind justice. The political climate is such they can't help but be swayed by the power hungry vipers that desire to wrest our freedoms away from us. They see an electorate that has, not entirely through fault of its own, become putty in the hands of influence peddlers and power pimps.

Should the SCOTUS, anchored in solid Constitutional principles stand with the states and "the people" that have become clueless, not altogether through fault of its own? IOW, there are forces at work, the hidden hand of pure evil if you will, that the SCOTUS certainly recognizes but the electorate has become blind to. Do they allow a misinformed, misguided and ignorant people to fall into the abyss, when they could probably stop it? Are there enough Constitutionalists within the SCOTUS to make it happen?

That appears to be a VERY interesting article which I WILL catch up with later. Gotta get ready for an invasion of grandkids this weekend. I did read the intro and it appears to me on the surface to be a bit of overreaction, but I’ll dig a little deeper later. Many thanks!

Parse this for me. It seems a little, uh, troublesome to one interested in the sovereignty of the people AND the states:

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.

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, "through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law."
~snip~

Huh? Can anybody help me out here with this "supremacy clause" legalese?

Our Constitution is the supreme "Law of the Land", and all officials in the USA are bound by oath to support/defend it, - the " Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"..

Parse this for me. It seems a little, uh, troublesome to one interested in the sovereignty of the people AND the states:
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.

No 'parsing' needed. The kicker is -- so long as a federal statute is constitutional, -- and of course, many are not, and no local, state or fed official is bound by unconstitutional statutes..

:)

Looking from the citizen's perspective toward government, there is a "dual sovereignty." Both the federal and the State law act directly upon individuals. Federal law does not act upon the States, and is specifically precluded from doing so under the doctrine of dual sovereignty. Where there is a real conflict between legitimate federal and State law, federal law pre-empts the State law. Maintenance of the system serves as a protection of individual rights. The State may not voluntarily agree to an enlargement of federal jurisdiction into its jurisdictional sphere when such is not authorized by a legitimate enumerated federal power. However, under what has been termed "cooperative federalism," it may be allowed to enact a State law to minimum federal standards in lieu of legitimate federal regulation that would otherwise preempt State law or it may accept a federal grant conditional upon compliance with provisions designed to advance a federal interest or program.

The Supreme Court has issued decisions that have created "implied powers" thought necessary to carry out enumerated powers; have expanded the Commerce Clause to reach almost anything in the stream of interstate commerce; and have allowed the feds to create extra-constitutional programs where they bribe the States, into complying. (This is the question with the stimulus package. Apparently the extra unemployment insurance monies come with strings attached.)

Basically, the provisions of various federal laws may not be applied in such a manner so as to:

Coerce or force any State into an agreement to implement a federal program or law;

Devise any State program or provisions thereof in compliance with a federal law or subject to the approval of a federal agency; or

Command State law enforcement, or other State officers to enforce a federal law or federal agency directives.

No 'parsing' needed.

There are hordes of Constitutional scholars that will be happy to hear that. ;^)

From what I’ve been able to gather, the “Supremacy” and “Commerce” Clauses are two of the most loosley wound articles in the Constitution, and they are the articles that allows the camel to stick his nose under the tent.

I LOVE your comment!!!!

Who knows. We can but hope. But I have learned after many years that so many that we expect to be lambs are vipers. We, the STATES, may just, one day, need to take matters into our own hands.

Really enjoyed your comment.

Are States Sovereign in America?

There have been many articles the last two weeks concerning the moves of several states to introduce legislation claiming certain rights under the 10th Amendment. When these articles are posted or socially bookmarked discussions seem to rise as to whether states are sovereign or not, in many peopleï¿½s stated views they are not.
by Gary Wood
(conservative libertarian)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10^th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10^th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16^th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17^th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10^th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10^th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.