It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The US Constitution created a limited federal government. All powers of the federal government are clearly spelled out in the US Constitution and there are only a limited number of them. The majority of government powers remain with the States or individuals. If the federal government passes laws that intrude into areas that were left in the hands of the States or individuals those laws violate the US Constitution.
A great many of the founding fathers strongly disagreed with the notions that we are bound unconstitutional until they are declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court is the sole guardian of the Constitution. They believed that “we the people” are the final arbiters of all things constitutional and unconstitutional and we the people are the absolute guardians of the Constitution.
Many founding fathers also believed the States have the power to declare that federal laws are unconstitutional and the States have the power to declare unconstitutional laws null and void. The most notable of the founding fathers that believe this are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In 1798 the US Congress passed the Alien and Sedition acts and President John Adams signed them into law. These laws were never appealed to the Supreme Court. In response to these clearly unconstitutional laws....
“Clearly, a federal law which is contrary to the Constitution is no law at all; it is null, void, invalid. And a Supreme Court decision, which is not a ‘law,’ has no ‘supremacy’—even if it is faithfully interpreting the Constitution. So it is the height of absurdity to claim that a Supreme Court decision that manifestly violates the Constitution is the ‘supreme law of the land.’” (William Jasper) .....
“Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!…The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself. I am a lawyer; I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies.” (Joseph Smith, Latter-day Prophets and the United States Constitution)
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
– Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
originally posted by: Elathan
originally posted by: Variable
a reply to: Elathan
Maybe you didnt read the article that you linked to above...?
The bill also requires that companies report any chemicals used in the drilling process. That list would be held confidentially by the state in case of emergency. However, the measure makes inappropriately revealing those chemical trade secretes a felony.
Read more at www.wral.com...
You realize a felony is a serious crime punishable by jail time i take it.
This is the source article:
Right, which makes sense...felony for state employees that reveal the chemical trade secrets...much like it's a felony for someone working for Coca-Cola to reveal the secret formula. So they are telling the state what they use, so there is transparency with the state, but they don't want other fracking companies to know. I'm fine with that.
Sounds like you should be against fracking! I know what you mean though…
Variable: I am not against fracking, but i simply do not trust the corporations to do anything but screw this up. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
The newer, more environmentally friendly technologies generally cost more than the legacy equipment they would replace. Extracting natural gas with water-free fracking, for example, could cost 25 percent more than conventional fracking, according to David Burnett, a professor of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M University who heads that school's Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems Program
Which deliberately misses my point, which is: Other fracking companies already know do fracking profitably, that it’s not a crime to use unpatented technology, and whilst industrial espionage might be a crime, it’s a rampant one because billionaires don’t get caught simply through employing portioning steps “of plausible deniability”.
So they are telling the state what they use, so there is transparency with the state, but they don't want other fracking companies to know. I'm fine with that. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...