It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's illegal for the States to opt out of Constitutionally backed and protected items!

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
You know there is a whole group of idiots who say that State's rights trumps that of Federal right? Well it is not and the proof is the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of The US Constitution that dictates the following :
-----------
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. ”
---------
en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 5-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

The key to your argument is Constitutional. You're 100% correct and that is how it needs to be if it's the UNITED States of America. It's where the Feds start meddling in every aspect of life we can imagine and that is NOT covered in any form by the Constitution that the 10th Amendment comes in and pretty much lays flat a good % of the laws being considered or in effect today. Naturally though, that only means a thing if States, the Feds or both have any respect or concern for the 10th. Outside of a precious few states starting to test those waters...none seem to care.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

the feds cannot assume any powers not granted ... states are supreme in that respect



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


..........no. The 10th Amendment is pretty clear. If something isn't specified in the Constitution, it's up to the states to decide on it. It wasn't designed to allow one set of laws that aren't specified in the Constitution to apply to all 50 states regardless of what the citizens in those states prefer.


You know there is a whole group of idiots who say that State's rights trumps that of Federal right?
Those idiots are spot on.
edit on 5-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 
Really, D1?

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

You notice the big catches there? The CONSTITUTION, and the law made IN PURSUANCE of the constitution, and treaties made under the authority of the US (valid according to the constitution), shall be the supreme law - anything else in the constitution (such as the bill of rights - "amendments") notwithstanding.

The constitution can't void itself:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
- SCOTUS, Marbury v. Madison

Give it up. The constitution provides clearly-limited enumerated powers, and anything falling outside them is left to the states and the people under the 9th and 10th amendments.

Otherwise we would HAVE no constitution, as the government could do whatever it wanted without limit. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

To address your title "It's illegal for the States to opt out of Constitutionally backed and protected items!," feel free to tell us what you feel are "Constitutionally backed and protected items."

THIS will be fun.

edit on 1/6/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Amendment X is actually the reason why there are more amendments to the Constitution.

The Federal Government needed to get the States to sign off on certain laws not previously covered by the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

ya know Imac, there certainly is

a whole group of idiots who say that State's rights trumps that of Federal right
and that would be because they are correct.

in case your comprehension is a bit on the slow side tonight, see if this helps any ...

This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. ”
perhaps there were too many words after the first comma which may have led to your confusion, however, it is perfectly clear --> the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the Federal government of any body or extension thereof.

Any law, local, state or federal which is contrary to or conflicts with the Constitution should be deemed null and void. any questions ?? see amendment (X) 10.
please, do step up and join the idiot brigade, you might just learn something.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I was about to bust loose on ya OP,

but I see it's some schooling going on in here.

Carry on guys stars all around.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. ”

The single most important line is: "all treaties made... shall be the supreme law of the land." Treaties are equal to anything else and it seems most of our laws are facilitated by international business treaties. I'm under the impression that the Treaty Of Paris is basically our governing law and not the constitution.

Treaties = laws that everyone has to follow, hence the "states rights" conundrum.



---------
en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 5-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Healthcare is a "Constutitutional item" yep never before in the history of this country was the citizen forced to buy a product or item until the care act.

And those stupid states(people) being forced and fined for not having a product deemed necessary by the Federal Government.

What is illegal is the Federal Government to define what is Constitutional or not the states joined of their free will in good faith and has been crapped on for decades.

So who are the idiots? The ones who go around believing the Government is the Alpha and the Omega here any power the Government has comes from the people not the other way around.

Seems too many people have forgotten that.
edit on 6-1-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


The term repugnant is used in definition since it's a living breathing document and is still law regardless of what our lovely Legislative thinks or says and that's just that on that! It means in simple terms that any law that is a challenge, threat or risk to the doc itself (like how States use the 10th to ignore say racial profiling to attempt to usurp the 4th!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


The HCR bill was to overhaul healthcare and how it's conducted and performed because people who paid everything back always got shortchanged! This law in reality makes access to basic healthcare a right under the right to "Petition The Govt for a redress of Grievances" & "Freedom of Expression" clauses of The 1st!
edit on 6-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Federal Treaty adherence by the States is mandatory to any Federally agreed to and signed treaty!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


however the federal government can not make ANY treaties that violate the constitution, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear as to their limitations. any treaties that restrict a state must be within the guidelines within the constitution or the treaty is null and void.
edit on 6-1-2012 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Hmmmm.

Sounds like you might be trying to make the US constituion into this:


The differences between Soviet and Western constitutions

On the surface, the constitutions resembled many constitutions adopted in the West. The differences between Soviet and Western constitutions, however, overshadow the similarities. Soviet constitutions declared certain political rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. They also identified a series of economic and social rights, as well as a set of duties of all citizens. The legislature was to be elected at periodical elections.

However, there was no mechanism for enforcing the rights provided by the constitutions - there was no constitutional court, the citizens could not sue the government, there were no guarantees for independent judiciary.

The special leading role of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was mentioned in the constitutions. In fact, it was the leadership of the Party which made all the political decisions in the country. The elections were a sham at which there was only one candidate for each constituency (proposed by the Party leadership) who was invariably elected.

Only during Perestroyka in the late 1980s did the constitution provide a framework for the emergence of real democracy.


The Constitution(s) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Big Government = Big Tyranny


According to Communist ideologists, the Soviet political system was a true democracy, where workers' councils called "soviets" represented the will of the working class. In particular, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed direct universal suffrage with the secret ballot. However all candidates had been selected by Communist party, at least before the June 1987 elections.








edit on Jan-06-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Federal Treaty adherence by the States is mandatory to any Federally agreed to and signed treaty!
IF said treaty is contrary to the Constitution, it is and should be null and void.

tis a shame the PEOPLE don't fix it as such actions are well within their guaranteed, unalienable and Constitutionally protected rights.
which also translates to the Feds wiping their arse with said treaty and any demands therefrom.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The meaning is hold allegiance to THE NATION above that of party! That and that alone is killing us by literately squeezing the life out of whatever little we all got left.and the visions been cloudy and hazy for a minute now.

Hence why we are the 4th Branch of Government that completes the group :

Executive - Legislative - Judicial - Citizenry! Knock one out the other three will self implode upon one another at an ever progressing rate of speed and freefall. Our foundation today is still shaky and not anchored too well as one or two more big rocks like 9/11 and 2008 crash and we may not survive! The 4 branch deal is to evenlly distribute and disperse authourity in 4 different directions with each getting a no higher then 25% vote on any matter as using the 3 Branch structure you can't evenly split up the 1% as out of 100% being whole right, one of the 3 can assume control of the remaining 1%, that in that structure divests to Executive under The Office Of POTUS!

WE all fight to make sure our fortress is firmly fortified and is reinforced and replaced whenever possible!

Besides, we have the numbers game in our favour in that regard as any law enforcement agency as a whole will never agree in unison under order to either detain or fire upon a neighbour, friend or family member!
edit on 6-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   


"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. ”


Just My Two Cents worth To summarize:
There is no question that The Constitution (including Amendments) are the law of the land along with
- other US Laws and
- Treaties

The issues regards states 9th and 10th amendment rights are moot - those rights are guaranteed as part of The Constitution and the over-riding supreme law of the land.

The issues regards federal laws center on whether or not those laws are "in pursuance thereof" the Constitution, colloquially framed as constitutional or unconstitutional. Regardless, the standard by which these laws are held must by definition include all the Constitutional provisions at their time of enactment and when considered by the courts. This would necessarily include the ninth and tenth amendments as well as any later amendments in place at the time. Constitutional conformance preceeds any other consideration by definition in Article VI, unfortunately it is not the custom followed by our congress.

The issue regards treaties has similar tests, specifically with regards to whether a treaty is entered into "under the authority of the United States" which would necessarily include the Constitutional authority to limit or impair rights guaranteed by the Constitution in a treaty. Again unfortunately it is not the custom of our President or Congress to be bothered by such insignificant details before engaging in fradulent treaties.

Article VI is very specific in detailing the characteristics of supremacy of law:
1) The Constitution as amended;
2) Laws of the US authorized under explicit grants of powers in the Constitution;
3) Treaties entered into which are not in conflict with provisions of the Constitution (as amended)
AND properly authorized by vote of the Congress with the appropriate signatories. In the case of a presidential signed treaty without congressional approval... it seems customary for Congress to ratify the treaty, with revisions (unfortunately not always mindful of Constitutional restrictions or Other US Law).

ganjoa



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
has any treaty, or clause contained in a treaty, ever come up for revue by the Supreme Court? Seems that state laws have, federal laws have, even local laws and simple actions of people not covered by laws, but in my limited knowledge base I have never heard of a treaty being brought to the supreme court. It is my understanding that post US bankruptcy and the subsequent perpetual state of war, has made the various treaties a defacto constitution with no redress and the supreme court's efforts to judge things versus the constitution are more kabuki theater then anything.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
You are kinda right.

First there's the BILL OF RIGHTS... THEN there's the 10th amendment.

States cannot violates the bill of rights if they want to. But the feds cannot come in and dictate what states can and can't do. The feds have a strict set of stuff to do as described in the constitution. Anything else is left to the states.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join