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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The original 13 states, that all fought a revolution to rid themselves of tyranny, did not agree to replace the Articles of Confederation with The Constitution in order to surrender their sovereignty. You are foolishly ignoring language in The Constitution in order to assert your fantasy of federal supremacy over the states.
I'm not claiming that the states have no power under the Constitution. I'm suggesting that the Constitution also establishes a legitimate federal government.
I point out the part that says "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" -- in other words "laws that are made" are included WITH the Constitution as being supreme.
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.
So the "supreme Law of the Land" can overrule the Constitution, apparently.
Many of you may remember the Civil War. From the point of view of the Confederacy, the war was primarily about state's rights, including the right to secede from the Union. We all know how that turned out.
The discussion of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" is relevant to a discussion of the Supremacy Clause because they are both now seen to modify the Tenth Amendment, which actually came AFTER the two clauses in the original Constitution.
I would once again like to guide the discussion back to these two clauses and raise the question of how they seem to contradict the very narrow and strict interpretation given to the Tenth Amendment by many people, especially people on these boards.
Most of the responses to my thread seem to ignore some of the very real contradictions and discrepancies in the United States Constitutions.
Instead of simply reciting the popular interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, I would like to discuss some of the nuances and subtleties that are introduced by looking at the two clauses, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, in relation to the Tenth Amendment.
What this says is that the powers of the Federal government are broader than the strict constructionists would like us to believe. There are many powers given to the states in the Constitution, but they do not trump the power of the Federal Government in every instance.
For example, the original document stated that a slave was 3/5 of a person. This was later altered by the 13th and 14th amendments. There are many other sections which are no longer enforced but have never been formally annulled.
We have always been a nation where Constitutional issues have been a matter of life and death to many. For example, the felling of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr.
In short, the Constitution is a living, changing document. It always has been and always will be. We have to work together on this. As Thomas Paine said, "If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately."
All texts of any length and/or complexity contain ambiguities, contradictions, layers of meaning and etc. The Constitution is no exception. However, this is not the forum for discussing textual deconstruction in detail.
The Constitution is the founding document of the federal government. It created it.
If it was not for the Constitution we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.
It is not clear in the Constitution that the states can dissolve the federal government. And as I already pointed out earlier, that issue was settled by the Civil War.