Replies

No, neither amendment contains any reference to the "rights" of the federal government. Rights are only mentioned as belonging to the people. Powers are delegated to the federal government by the people through their states via the specification of those powers in the Constitution. Rights are the sole province of the people. What you're doing here is like a four year-old pointing out what she sees in a cloud and insisting that everyone else must see it as well. The plain language you posted refutes your claim. There is simply no way to read: "The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people" and then to claim that for a state power to be valid, it must be enumerated as you are doing in reference to secession.

I see where you are coming from. You are picking nits when I am using rights vice powers. And literally you are correct (although a case could easily be made that with certain powers come certain rights).

The 10th amendment makes reference to federal enumerated powers when it says that all powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states...

Now to pick nits with you, show me where in the constitution that said powers are delegated to the federal government via state governments and the people.

While the 10th amendment does not list enumerated federal powers, they surely make reference to them.

So, according to Article VI, clause 2 and the 10th amendment of the Constitution, any powers reserved to the federal government trumps any laws made by the states. Period.

This is really bizarre the way you have actually posted the text of Article VI and of the 9th and 10th amendments and are now pointing proudly at them and assuring me that their plainly worded language says something else entirely from what my eyes can see. I'm to trust you instead of my lying eyes, huh? I urge you to seek professional help before you snap and kill us all.

Can I help it if you can't read plain english? Take a deep breath, and try to read article VI, clause 2 and the 10th amendment again. If you can't read, get someone else to do it for you. Read very carefully, note the word "delegated" and "prohibited" in the 10th. Note that the constitution takes precedence over any laws instituted by state governments.

Note that the constitution takes precedence over any laws instituted by state governments

Only those made "pursuant" (as in "conforming to") to the Constitution. By your continued unqualified definition no federal law could ever be unconstitutional. Article IV, Section 1 requires that the acts of the states be recognized by all parties to the Constitution:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

The Declarations of Secession by the states were constitutional - unless you can cite something within the Constitution that prohibits secession. Which, according to Amendment X, means a posititve enumeration of a power specifically delegating the federal government the ability to prohibit secession, or or a clause that prohibits the states from seceding. Neither exist.

I regret having wasted my time on someone as obviously afflicted as you are. It's pointless for me to tell you that I am reading the plain English while you're busy huffing glue and talking about the groovy,far out emanations from penumbras.

This is a little over my daily limit of jabberwocky, son. I guess I'll have to shun you after all.