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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The very second paragraph of the wiki page from your O.P. states:



However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.

Your WIKI page




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

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!)

Well, you're correct there - which is why I'm a little confused by your OP, apparently. You said:

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

Well, states' rights and federal rights are two completely different things. One of the main points of Marbury v. Madison is that laws hostile or in contradiction to the constitution are null and void, and any law passed by Congress that they don't have authority to handle - for example, the Controlled Substances Act - ought be considered null and void as this would fall solely under the realm of the states.

The only way for the federal government to handle these issues is via constitutional amendment to BRING it under the jurisdiction of the federal government, as they did with alcohol prohibition (which was every bit as much a failure as our current unconstitutional CSA is).

So, we're dealing with two completely different realms here - if there is something that the government does have valid jurisdiction over, then you are correct in stating the states cannot pass laws contrary to it and the 9th and 10th amendments do not come into play. But, very few enumerated powers are granted unto Congress, and the context of the founders sets the limits on the interpretation of the various clauses SCOTUS has so readily abused over the years.

The federal government does not have any valid authority in, nor right to give the states a hard time about, a good many things it has involved itself with.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
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!


Perhaps you might look up the definitions of "living" and "breathing". While the Constitution for the United States of America is a profound document and one of the finest political doctrines ever written, it still remains words on a piece of paper that do not breathe, nor is that document alive by any stretch of the imagination.

Further, it is worth considering the words of a few Supreme Court Justices in Bond v United States:


There is no basis to support the Government’s pro- posed distinction between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. The princi- ples of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment, both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, see New York , 505 U. S., at 155–159, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. See United States v. Lopez , 514 U. S. 549, 564 (1995) . The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases.



I join the Court’s opinion and write separately to make the following observation. Bond, like any other defendant, has a personal right not to be convicted under a constitutionally invalid law.



In short, a law “beyond the power of Congress,” for any reason, is “no law at all.”


These are just more words blinking across an electronic screen, or can be read on the very deadness of paper, but those who rendered the ruling, I assure you, were living and breathing when they did so.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
It is clear and basic, the U.S. Federal government is supreme law of the land in all matters granted by the Constitution, which are very broad indeed. States are bound to federal laws that remain within the framework of the U.S. Constitution.

Specifically, the states write their own laws, but they are bound to meet Fed Constitutional requirements. A good example is business regulation. States regulate business within the state, but when business is conducted across state borders, it becomes the jurisdiction of the Fed Gov. The same is true with crime, when a crime spree crosses state borders, it becomes the jurisdiction of the Fed Gov, and with pollution, when the pollution travels across state borders.

The Ninth Amendment allows people to identify additional rights, and it doesn't specify the need for a constitutional amendment to establish those rights. Take labor laws for example. The people chose to establish certain laws to protect laborers, so those laws were written and enforced, and is allowed under the Constitution under welfare of the people.

People want to claim that the U.S. government is not allowed to protect the rights of the individual from corporate or institutional abuse, but nowhere in the D of I or the U.S. Constitution is this restriction made.


edit on 10-1-2012 by poet1b because: typo



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join