Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Myth of the US Constitution's "Supremacy Clause"

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


As a practicing attorney...you're blowing it here. This is a dead issue. And using The Federalist Papers is useless and not how the Constitution is interpreted by SCOTUS. The Constitution is interpreted according to its own words, pursuant to the four corners approach, and according to our collective morals and values at any given time. Again, this is a dead issue and you are doing it wrong, lol.




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jaffo
 


Justice Scalia, who delivered the opinion of the court, quoted the Federalist Papers pretty extensively.

This is what I read:



Held:

1.The Brady Act's interim provision commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. Extinguished with it is the duty implicit in the background-check requirement that the CLEO accept completed handgun-applicant statements (Brady Forms) from firearms dealers, §§922(s)(1)(A)(i)(III) and (IV). Pp.

(a) Because there is no constitutional text speaking to the precise question whether congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional, the answer to the CLEOs' challenge must be sought in historical understanding and practice, in the Constitution's structure, and in this Court's jurisprudence. P. 2369.

(b) Relevant constitutional practice tends to negate the existence of the congressional power asserted here, but is not conclusive....
Printz v. United States


I'm not disputing your undoubtedly superior knowledge, but you'll have to enlighten me on how it's a dead issue....



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jaffo
 


keep practicing, and let me know when you become a competent attorney.
If one cannot tell the difference between an individual and an organization, he is incompetent to practice law.
So I ask you this, sir,

Could you please explain Kentucky revised statute 213.051?
Why does KRS 355.9-307 clearly state the united states is located in the district of columbia?
Why does the USC , and case law state that the UNITED STATES is a foreign corporation, in regards to the states?

I know why, and if you do i'll be impressed.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 7Thunders
 



Could you please explain Kentucky revised statute 213.051?
Why does KRS 355.9-307 clearly state the united states is located in the district of columbia?
Why does the USC , and case law state that the UNITED STATES is a foreign corporation, in regards to the states?


This question deserves an answer.

Crickets.





new topics

top topics
 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join