Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution vs. the Tenth Amendment

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 don't think so. I'm just asking questions.

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.

Maybe you're just asserting your own "fantasy"of secession and possibly another civil war?

reply to post by Sestias

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.

Now you're just flat out lying. Your the one who made this assertion:

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.

Willfully ignoring pursuance of thereof and only focusing on laws that are made so you could jump to this conclusion:

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.

Once again ignoring the reality of judicial review in order to make this assertion. Then astoundingly making this ludicrous remark:

So the "supreme Law of the Land" can overrule the Constitution, apparently.

You play a foolish baiting game hoping to get me to advocate civil war, but it is you who brought up the last civil war, not I:

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.

Arrogantly taunting those who recognize states rights. Later, on the following page, you make this remarkably ignorant remark:

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.

Apparently believing that the 10th Amendment was written before the "Necessary and Proper" Clause in order to foolishly claim it "modifies" the 10th Amendment, in spite of your lame qualification that follows your ignorant remark. What was originally can not modify what is written afterword, and the converse is the only thing that can be true.

You continue in that same post with this remark:

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.

Claiming there are contradictions where none exist:

Most of the responses to my thread seem to ignore some of the very real contradictions and discrepancies in the United States Constitutions.

Resorting to more bating with this remark:

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.

Further revealing your political ideology with this remark:

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.

The Constitution did not "give the states power", the states, via the people, granted a limited amount of power to the federal government. Earlier when I cited the Preamble, you attempted to deflect, and went off topic by pointing to the Welfare Clause, only further revealing your ideology.

You then continue to reveal your profound ignorance for the Constitution by claiming that:

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.

Of course, the Constitution never, at any point, ever mentions slaves, and the 3/5 Clause was not "altered" by the `13th Amendment, and certainly not by the 14th Amendment, nor was it nullified, and remains a part of that document today. The 13th Amendment rendered the 3/5 Clause moot, but it did not alter the language in anyway.

You grossly misrepresent historical facts with this stupid remark:

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.

The duel between Hamilton and Burr was not over any Constitutional issue, and you continue to invent "facts" in order to make your claim that we have "always been a nation where Constitutional issues have a been a matter of life and death".

Where you earlier demanded those who recognized the 10th Amendments assertion of state sovereignty to abandon "popular arguments" you then turn around and make the favorite argument of Democrats:

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."

The Constitution is not alive, and with the exception of the additions to that Constitution by Amendments, it does not change, and all that was originally written in that Constitution remains written and enforceable.

You continue to demonstrate your remarkable ignorance of the Constitution by making this remark:

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.

Lamely attempting to frame a four page simple document as a text of length and/or complexity, apparently believing that you can convince others that the Constitution can't be understood, and is rife with ambiguities and contradictions, but it is only you making this claim, not anyone else.

You again reveal your intent and ideology when you make this statement:

The Constitution is the founding document of the federal government. It created it.

Ignoring the Preamble, the Articles of Confederation, and the Revolution of Independence fought by 13 colonies, in order to make that conclusion. You are, quite emphatically wrong, and the Constitution did not create the federal government, We the People did, and at all times, We the People hold the inherent political power of this nation.

You even further reveal your ideology with this remark:

If it was not for the Constitution we would still be living under the Articles of Confederation.

The primary difference between the Articles of Confederation and The Constitution is the power of the federal government to levy taxes. Gasp! If it weren't for the Constitution, as you desperately claim, the federal government couldn't enforce any taxes! Double Gasp!

You then reveal your hypocrisy by making this remark:

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.

So, when it suits your purposes, The Constitution is a "living changing document", until it no longer suits your purposes, which that purpose is to dismiss any sovereignty held by the states, and in that regard, your "living changing document" becomes an issue "settled" by civil war.

Your intent has been clear from the get go, and your backpedaling now doesn't change that. Between you and I, it is only you that keeps mentioning civil war, and any mention I made of it is in response to your assertions about civil war. You've clearly gone beyond disingenuous tactics, into bald faced lying, and why? Simply to dismiss the sovereignty of the states.

The Federal government has relegated the Constitution to nothing more than a G-D piece of paper as purportedly stated by BushII.

The use of the *supremacy clause* for damn near anything that a CONgress member wants to ram through only substantiates that CONgress member as one who has violated their oath of office and should be tried accordingly.





[edit on 20-8-2010 by bozzchem]