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.
I should ONLY care about the IMMEDIATE family. My family includes those that SEEK true freedom.
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.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Presumably, all laws made by Congress are considered Constitutional by that Congress. One may disagree with this, but again the argument seems to be between the strict and the loose interpreters of the document.
Also worth pointing out is the part that says "any Thing in the CONSTITUTION (caps are mine) or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
So the "supreme Law of the Land" can overrule the Constitution, apparently.
Again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I am enjoying this thread immensely and learning a lot in the process.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
If the states say no, then the answer is no.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Lincoln was a terrorist that hated blacks, wanted to ship them back to Africa, and did everything he could to provoke a war to obtain more power.
"You and we are different races..." "We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both" and "affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."
With all due respect, the proposition that the Constitution allows courts to interpret the law and strike down laws as unconstitutional is not something "taken out of context." Marbury clearly enables it.
Regardless of what his personal views might have been, the fact is he did free the slaves. No one else before him had done anything close to that.
That is historical record and cannot be changed by any other names you want to call him.
Most of the Founding Fathers were for the abolition of slavery. John Adams was an outspoken foe of the institution. Alexander Hamilton founded the New York Manumission Society. Just before he died, Benjamin Franklin forwarded a petition from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society to Congress in 1790 to force the legislative body to stop the slave trade and work on a plan to abolish slavery. Thomas Paine wrote an influential essay in 1775 in the Pennsylvania Journal advocating abolition. George Washington grew to hate slavery and wrote that it was his fondest wish “to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.” As a young man, Thomas Jefferson was one of the strongest leaders in pushing for the abolition of slavery: he denounced the institution in his book Notes On The State of Virginia and formulated a plan of gradual abolition that featured an end to the slave trade, the prohibition of slavery, and the establishment of a date in which newly born children of slaves would be free. In the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson pushed in the Virginia legislature and the federal government to face up to the issue of slavery; in 1784, Jefferson pushed for a bill to prohibit slavery in the western territories that failed to pass by a single vote.