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

reply to post by tadaman


Thank you, tadaman. That's very well stated. The federal government will go to great lengths to encroach upon our rights of self-determination. Of course, as you point out, great lengths are usually not necessary—just a naked threat and a false promise of power-sharing....

Great Law of Peace
Gayanashagowa or the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee) Six Nations (Oneida, Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, the Seneca and Tuscarora) is the oral constitution whereby the Iroquois Confederacy was bound together. The law was written on wampum belts, conceived by Deganawidah, known as The Great Peacemaker, and his spokesman Hiawatha. The original five member nations ratified this constitution near present-day Victor, New York, with the sixth nation (the Tuscarora) being added in ca. 1720.



Constitution of the United States
On September 17, 1787,
forty-two of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention held their final meeting. Only one item of business occupied the agenda that day, to sign the Constitution of the United States of
America.
Signing the Constitution, 'unanimous' by delegation. Eleven states ratify to begin in 1789, unanimously 1790




French Revolution 1789

The French Charter of 1814
was a constitution granted by King Louis XVIII of France.
The opening twelve articles of the Charter are analogous to a 'Bill of Rights'.
They contained such measures as a:
declaration of equality before the law,
due process rights,
religious toleration,
freedom of the press,
protection of private property,
abolition of conscription.
These principles, together with the retention of the Napoleonic Code, represent some of the permanent gains of the French Revolution.




And finally,,

The British North America Act, 1867
Fathers of Canadian Confederation



They were interesting times. Is this Generation of the same Stuff??

reply to post by Ahabstar


I saw you back there, Ahab. I didn't mean to ignore you; your thoughts were complete in themselves and didn't require any input....

BobAthome

[...]


They were interesting times. Is this Generation of the same Stuff??

That's the real question, isn't it?

Maybe with a suitable-gauge firehose to wake them up, a proper Breakfast of Champions, all followed by a righteous (re-)education....

frazzle

Ex_CT2
reply to post by frazzle

 

OK. Sorry, frazzle, I misunderstood; I thought you were making the opposite argument. I don't agree, however, that there's nothing we can do.

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, as they say. For those playing along at home, the 14th Amendment usually raises its ugly head just as a discussion of "Supremacy" gets off to a good start.

Unfortunately the 14th is an extremely complex subject about which 99.9999% of us are completely mis-educated.

But despite the links you gave proving that some people are awake and aware, it will never be enough. I was listening to Glenn Beck (one of the biggest dissemblers on earth) last night and he was on one of his "man on the street" kicks. Love him or hate him, over half the people he quizzed couldn't name the secretary of state or give the number of countries in North America, so expecting to get people to understand the more complex issues like the hoax of the 14th amendment is a minnow swimming against a tsunami of misinformation.

I would LOVE to be wrong about that.

Well this is were a certain bureaucracy was created to circumvent the constitution and states rights by way of training into a condition of ignorance while glorifying itself beyond measure.

reply to post by Logarock


You don't mean . . . [shudder] . . . the Department of Education?

Attend:

The Fourteenth Amendment has had precisely the effect that its nineteenth-century Republican party supporters intended it to have: it has greatly centralized power in Washington, D.C., and has subjected Americans to the kind of judicial tyranny that Thomas Jefferson warned about when he described federal judges as those who would be "constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." It's time for all Americans to reexamine the official history of the "Civil War" and its aftermath as taught by paid government propagandists in the "public" schools for the past 135 years.
TheTruth About the 14th Amendment, Ludwig von Mise Institute

Logarock

frazzle

Ex_CT2
reply to post by frazzle

 

OK. Sorry, frazzle, I misunderstood; I thought you were making the opposite argument. I don't agree, however, that there's nothing we can do.

Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, as they say. For those playing along at home, the 14th Amendment usually raises its ugly head just as a discussion of "Supremacy" gets off to a good start.

Unfortunately the 14th is an extremely complex subject about which 99.9999% of us are completely mis-educated.

But despite the links you gave proving that some people are awake and aware, it will never be enough. I was listening to Glenn Beck (one of the biggest dissemblers on earth) last night and he was on one of his "man on the street" kicks. Love him or hate him, over half the people he quizzed couldn't name the secretary of state or give the number of countries in North America, so expecting to get people to understand the more complex issues like the hoax of the 14th amendment is a minnow swimming against a tsunami of misinformation.

I would LOVE to be wrong about that.

Well this is were a certain bureaucracy was created to circumvent the constitution and states rights by way of training into a condition of ignorance while glorifying itself beyond measure.

Not only is the Constitution absolutely silent on the subject of education, but the U.S. Supreme Court has also refused to recognize any right to a taxpayer-funded education. www.cato.org...

So did they circumvent the Constitution to circumvent the Constitution? No, they didn't even have to do that, they just made it up out of whole cloth. And they not only demand that we must pay for this pretend circumvention of the pretend circumvention, we DO it. I guess maybe we got more education than we bargained for, or at least more than was good for us.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


If you have to reference anything outside of the Constitution to make your argument, you are grasping for straws to attempt to validate your OPINION.

The Federalists papers are about as valid as the Star Trek's Prime Directive when discussing what the Constitution means. The Federalist papers were written in defense of the Constitution for the people at that time, not as a reference guide for all times. By the way, the Declaration of Independence means nothing (legally) as well.

However, if you want to use the Federalist Papers as canon, then I would like you to reconcile Federalist #44 where Madison argues for the Supremacy clause to do EXACTLY what it says...to be the supreme law of the land. Here is just a small sample where Madison is directly arguing against what you say.

www.constitution.org...

In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.

The Constitution is a single inclusive document, there are no outside references. There is one way and one way only to alter it and that is by amending it by the rules stated within it. The Federalist papers were simply a group of arguments written to support their ideas. To take these as canon would mean that we would have to take all defending comments to all laws passed as canon as well. That would mean personal opinion (which is what the federalist papers are) would trump actual written law...and that is just flat out wrong.

The Supremacy Clause does exactly what it says it does...it makes the Constitution, Federal Law, And Federal Treaties the Supreme Law Of The Land. Period.

reply to post by AlienScience


OK. It's clear you believe that, so there's nothing I can say.

Star for participation....

Ex_CT2
reply to post by AlienScience

 

OK. It's clear you believe that, so there's nothing I can say.

Star for participation....

Well, that was a lively debate. When someone has no response, that usually means they have nothing to respond with.

But I guess it would be hard for you to argue against Madison and the Federalist Papers when that was the entire crux of your argument.

I have another piece of supporting evidence on my side as well...and that is the current state of reality where the Supremacy Clause is in practice how it is written, not how you interpret it.

Ex_CT2
reply to post by onthedownlow

 

Only if they're in pursuance of the Constitution—meaning within their enumerated powers. Which is to say that if the Feds overreach their authorities—as they continuously do—then obviously they're acting unconstitutionally and the laws are null and void.

That is, after all, the whole point....

ETA: It can also be argued whether the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutionality, but I'm not prepared to enter such an exhausting argument at this point.

edit on 9/14/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)

The supreme court was also not meant to write or make law but yet they continue to do so more and more. Your right the constitution was barely ratified and was not meant for more than the original thirteen. There is allot of things happening that are not constitutional. Like the president not being elected by the people. Lol what a crock that is.....

The Bot

reply to post by AlienScience


These are functions proposed to be delegated to the federal government, and why they're not delegated also to the states (except for limited shared powers). (According to my limited knowledge of the subject; I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar.)

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise:

1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper?
2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it?

General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution (Federalists #41-#48)

reply to post by dlbott


Yes, there has from the start been a problem with the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench." The first opportunity they had (Marbury v. Madison) they used to arrogate to themselves the authority over deciding Constitutionality. We live with it to this day, presumably for lack of any other (or at least any better) mechanism....

reply to post by Ex_CT2
They were the ones that decided banks could not be taxed. Several states sued early 1800s, SP sided with the banks. Where they got precedent for this is anyone guess.

Ex_CT2
reply to post by Logarock

 

You don't mean . . . [shudder] . . . the Department of Education?

Attend:

The Fourteenth Amendment has had precisely the effect that its nineteenth-century Republican party supporters intended it to have: it has greatly centralized power in Washington, D.C., and has subjected Americans to the kind of judicial tyranny that Thomas Jefferson warned about when he described federal judges as those who would be "constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." It's time for all Americans to reexamine the official history of the "Civil War" and its aftermath as taught by paid government propagandists in the "public" schools for the past 135 years.
TheTruth About the 14th Amendment, Ludwig von Mise Institute

edit on 9/14/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)

Yes indeed.

Did you hear, a few weeks back, a certain Jesse Jackson said at a press conference or something, that the Tea Party was "the resurrection of the old south". Leave it to someone who has looked to strong federal involvement....cough cough.....for all of his life to feel this way about the TP.

reply to post by Logarock


Yeh, Jesse Jackson knows which side his bread is buttered on, so to say.

It's so sad. The real tragedy here is that our society is so screwed-up and stirred-up (by deliberate design) that there's even a place for Jesse Jackson and all the other opportunists who depend upon keeping the unhappy and unfortunate at each other's throats while the true villains make it infinitely worse by vacuuming all the value out of the economy and make off to their plush hideaways to make even scarier plans for us....

There are two key words to look at. "land" and "judges"

"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This speaks to primarily things international, as first of all as this line speaks to treaties which sets the framework for the rest. Laws are things settled by a court, or were, not things made up by politicians - look up how many laws were in place back then. What we have now are rules of conduct, not laws - rules of conduct are not national issues.

Second. "the law of the land" but NOT THE SEA. Maritime law.

Third. And the judges shall be bound - point me in the direction of a Constitutional judge.

The main problem here is the laws are maritime laws, which the constitution has no jurisdiction over, as it says "land" not "land and sea." Therein lies the problem, that line been altered to say, "land and sea" then we'd have a whole different world - in fact there would have been at least two revolutions since 1776.

The constitution hasn't been in effect for sometime. It is really only a fig leaf trotted out on occasions to give people the idea that it is all in working order. When the country went bankrupt, 100 years ago, things changed. In order to get "money" states had to alter things a weeee bit. Since a state can't print its own money, and since the money comes from the Private Banks, the Federal Gov signs for it, then distributes it. In exchange the Private Banks demand maritime laws be in place, because the constitution rules the land.

reply to post by crankyoldman


I don't really follow all of that, but I've often encountered those concepts.

They're a bit wide of the scope of the thread at hand, but they're also extremely important in their own right. I would recommend starting with Winston Shrout.

His website is Winston Shrout Solutions in Commerce
Fair warning: He has a lot of extremely valuable information, and you have to pay for most of it.

If you prefer, you can start at Youtube. He's done a lot of presentations and interviews that give you an idea of the amount and nature of the information he deals in:
many Winston Shrout videos

Thanks for bringing this up....

reply to post by Ex_CT2




Wooooaaaaahhhhhh.

1. What is the "United States of america"?

Answer: It is the "Style" of the Confederacy.

2. What is the Constitution ?

Answer: A legal compact entered into by the states of the american Union, Created by the constitutors, for the purpose of paying the debts incurred by the several states.

3. What the hell happened ?

Answer: the 14th and subsequent amendments and laws related thereto.

4. How come government treats me like a slave?

Answer: Because according to their law you are a bondman with with a master, and civilly dead.

Your Birth certificate is a record of an organization being organized, the legal name of that "organization" is your all caps name. You are considered as the registered agent for service of process for the registered organization, and your "residence" is your registered office".

All persons born..........not all men.....are citizens of the united states. Which is a foreign corporation in regard to the several states.

There are many different classes of persons, the Constitutions were for "Ourselves and our posterity", meaning Freemen (landowners) whom are mostly referred to as White citizens.

You see a "person" is inherited. If one is not of known parentage he cannot inherit, for from whom shall he inherit from?
If you are of unknown parentage, you are considered in law as a "human being" a monster. You cannot be the posterity of the people and subsequently have no rights secured by the constitution. Which is where the 14th amendment comes in.

After the civil war, congress gave former slaves a status in which they could exercise Commercial rights, by naming such people as agents of the united states, the "agency" created is a person, that person is a citizen of the united states, the former slave or pauper being the "operator" of the agency who has the status of a citizen of the United States.

By the way the civil war never ended, the armies of the confederacy surrendered, but no peace treaty signed, and as a result, martial law has been in effect since the civil war, and continues today. Which is why you see the gold fringed flag in courts.

If you are having problems with some states agency, contact the highest military commander in your state and tell them your problems with agency,, trust me, they will correct any errors made by any state agency.


Here it comes........

please read Kentucky revised statute 213.051, if you have a birth certificate, this will explain the contents of your birth certificate.

Summary,

Are you of unknown parentage?

I know who my father is, my father is in heaven .
The first man is born of the earth, the second of the spirit.

And by the way, the birth certificate is a "mark" (black's law), and you cannot buy and sell without it.

reply to post by 7Thunders


Yeah, this is the stuff that we're not supposed to find out—and yet "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Moreover, those who do find it out are ridiculed and labeled as "wing nuts."

What's more: Those who do learn to use the rules to their advantage have to be careful never to make a single misstep when using them—because a single slip will bring the wrath of the system down on them like a death-hammer.

All taken together, it's easier for most people to continue along as serfs in their own country. I know plenty of people who wouldn't so much as cheat at a game of chess; they're truly "not doing anything wrong," so they're fine with how things work....