Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President

Great pic!

Unfortunately, we have developed a false and very limiting understanding of Article VI, s.2 (the "Supremacy Clause").

Laws made by Congress TO IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION are supreme and state governments and courts must follow them.

Court decisions are not laws. Court decisions NEVER directly implicate the Supremacy Clause, although court decisions MAY involve a Constitutional power delegated to Congress or the President, in which case they MIGHT require state governments and state courts to follow them (example: A state law requiring payment of a poll tax in violation of Amendment XXIV could lead to a Federal court order which would invoke the Supremacy Clause).

In any event, Congress has not passed a gay marriage law and has no power to do so, except as regards the District of Columbia, and the Constitution has not been amended to restrict the authority of States to legislate on this matter, so the Supremacy Clause is not in play and these lower court decisions appearing to void state laws are meaningless. Any governor or state judge who obeys them is doing so because they want to.

>> they obviously didn’t even read the first few sentence posted here <<

Welcome to FR!

>> Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement — and become a hero and martyr to millions. <<

Well, you might want to ask Governors Orville Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi how things worked out for them when they did exactly as you suggest.

Lesson:

You go up against the U. S. Army and you lose. Then you pretty much fade away into obscurity. I bet not more than one in ten from among today’s FReepers can even identify both Faubus and Barnett. So much for heroic martyrdom.

Great quote. I don’t know what you mean about the author though. The authors don’t post these articles. Freepers who like them do.

The American Thinker provided the link to the author's website.

I simply copied it.

Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"
I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.
[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]

Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]

Rand Paul's immigration speech
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...

This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.

Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...
[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists]
[Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]

Regarding the despotic judiciary, Jefferson later wrote the following.

"If the two departments [Federal and State] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided not compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

So in addition to impeaching activist justices, Jefferson appropriately saw amending the Constitution as an alternative to resolving power struggles between federal and state governments..

And in those days when state lawmakers actually read the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they had Jefferson’s encouragement that they could “overturn” unpopular Supreme Court case decisions by appropriately amending the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 17th and 19th Amendements, and others, are examples of the states doing so.

But somewhere along the line, not only did state lawmakers evidently begin regarding the Constitution as chiseled in granite, the perverted interpretations of it by activist justices the final word, but also consider this. The reason that thug justices aren’t getting impeached is that corrupt federal lawmakers who have the power to impeach them need to be impeached.

Finally, note that the Constitution’s Article V can be “paraphrased” as follows.

Rule 1: The states are always right.
Rule 2: When the states are wrong, see rule 1.