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

Congress could write a law that violated the laws of physics but that does not make it valid. The supreme court could uphold that law with the supremacy clause, yet that still does not cause a ball will not roll uphill on its own.

The arrogance and outright lawlessness with respect to the constitution both, congress and SCOTUS holds in their hands, is not much different than trying to pass such a law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Wait a MINUTE! Someone that has donned the robes of the sacred order of BAR and has consummated the religious zealotry based upon the sacred order of BAR, has actual relevance.

Funny how the founders wrote the Constitution and RELEVANT declarations in standard LANGUAGE, not legalese!

Those that argue against the supremacy clause are ALWAYS against the supremacy of the federal government CRUSHING the opposition and those that read the Constitution as it was written, original intent, are just idiotic or ill conceived in THEIR interpretations.

Almost the same as those against king george and those that prostrate themselves at his feet.

Samual Adams-
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us
in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon
you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

reply to post by endisnighe


I think the problem of interpretation of the Supremacy Clause comes from referring to it as the Supremacy Clause rather than simply just calling it Article VI, Clause 2. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and this is what is asserted by Article VI, Clause 2. Those laws that are Constitutionally legislated by Congress, and enacted into law by signature of The President are also Supreme Laws of the Land. All treatise made under the Authority granted Congress and/or The President are also Supreme.

Those acts of legislation not Constitutional are Supreme Crap and nothing more. Those treatise made that are not Constitutional are null and void.

Even a law that may be Constitutional can be rendered null and void by the people, through non-acquiescence. When the 18th Amendment was passed people did not give a hoot that the Supreme Court upheld this Amendment as Constitutional and drank anyway. Their non-acquiescence to Congress, and subsequently the Executive branches ill advised intrusion led directly to the 21st Amendment.

What is tragic is that people are more than willing to defy the federal government when it comes to getting drunk, but when it comes to unconstitutional enforcement of income taxes, the people, in a jaw dropping acquiescence pay a tab that most are not even liable for. Of course, now the IRS has been tasked with enforcing this ridiculous health insurance legislation, so maybe people will start to take a different stance about paying taxes they are not even liable for...or then again maybe not...just as long as they have their whiskey.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes, non conformity. I RESEMBLE that remark.

Youngest of five brothers, I use to get in trouble all the time. What was funny, my father NEVER protected me. It was his FINAL lesson to me if I remember correctly.

Non-conformity is GREAT.

I am me, you are you, the instant that conformity is the purpose of society, I guess they may as well kill me. Or at least attempt to subjugate my endeavors.

They will fail, just as all tyrants have failed.

My solution has always been, non conformance. Do not give them the power. It is past time I put my business back into action. 15 years ago I ran a business with over 30 people. We all made vast amounts of money. I paid my guys, I am looking at old forms now, over 20 dollars an hour back in the 90's.

I guess the time has come again. My family thinks I spend TOO much time on the net talking and spreading the message. I should ONLY care about the IMMEDIATE family. My family includes those that SEEK true freedom.

As of now, I have been lazy, I have been comfortable with my life of slight luxury. Not very luxurious for those that care! Just COMFORTABLE. Yes, my family has told me I should do this, do that, friends have told me to this, do that. It is all self serving, it is all purposeful for THEIR endeavors. Me, I like to just teach and run things. Very good at it, but once I get to a point that I should be able to let the company go, NO ONE wants to take the same RESPONSIBILITY as I placed myself in.

THAT is the problem with individualism, people do NOT want to take RESPONSIBILITY for their OWN lives. That drives me CRAZY!

reply to post by endisnighe

I should ONLY care about the IMMEDIATE family. My family includes those that SEEK true freedom.

Thank you brother!

I think it is time you form your company again. It is imperative you flourish and prosper. Your presence on the internet has great value, but informing people can only go so far. It is important to build wealth so that you have a strong foundation on which to fight tyranny. It is far easier to fight tyranny when you have wealth, than when you don't.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Again, Article 6, Clause 2 reads as follows:

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.

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.

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.

Also worth pointing out is the part that says "any Thing in the CONSTITUTION (caps are mine) or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

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

Again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I am enjoying this thread immensely and learning a lot in the process.





[edit on 4-8-2010 by Sestias]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Sestias]

Double post

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Sestias]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

To restate a section you have already posted:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The clause that says "promote the general Welfare" is assumed to be the justification for social programs like Social Security.

Again, you have disagreements about how sections of the Constitution are to be interpreted. Also an argument between the strict and the loose constructionists.




[edit on 4-8-2010 by Sestias]

reply to post by Sestias

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.

Obviously since Marbury v. Madison, the SCOTUS most assuredly does disagree with this presumption. That is why the SCOTUS has the power of judicial review. The strict Constitutionalist will argue that the power of judicial review is not expressly delegated to the Supreme Court, and it is not. It is, however, implied.

Naturally, since Congress has been prohibited from making any laws abridging speech, establishing religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances, they can not Constitutionally make any laws doing so. And yet, they do.

This is why in Citizen's United, The SCOTUS struck down a good chunk of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act as being unconstitutional.

Also worth pointing out is the part that says "any Thing in the CONSTITUTION (caps are mine) or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

There is a big difference between having a difference of opinion over interpretation, and someone just misunderstanding what was written. The Supremacy Clause asserts the Constitution as being Supreme Law of the Land. Congress derives its powers, (delegated to them from the people) from that Constitution. Congress can not just enact a law disregarding the Constitution. Consider Chief Justice Marshall's ruling in

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

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

Apparently not.

Again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I am enjoying this thread immensely and learning a lot in the process.

I am glad you are enjoying this thread, as am I. However, one does not have to be a "Constitutional scholar" as the term is bandied about by the corporate media these days in order to understand that very simple document. In fact, as The Bill of Rights make clear, common law is very much a part of that Constitution, and it is a long standing principle of common law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is good that you have started this thread, and seek to learn more about the Constitution, and how that document serves as a delegation of limited power, and more importantly, how that document serves as a restraint on those who have been granted this limited power.

The simplist thing about the Constitution which is often missed in interpreting it is that the Constitution was created only to limit government power, while still providing protect and welfare of the people. It also protects the people from governmental abuse.

So when the government does anything without due process or to hinder the protection of a state, it is going against the very principles that the Constitution stands for.

You don't even have to read any Articles in the Constitution to get that, yet time and time again it is ignored.

reply to post by Zaxxon


Well, no one ever said that politicians, lawyers, or judges ever had COMMON sense.

Excellent point though. What was the BASIC premise of the ENTIRE Consitution?! Excellent.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Marbury v. Madison

With all due respect, the proposition that the Constitution allows courts to interpret the law and strike down laws as unconstitutional is not something "taken out of context." Marbury clearly enables it.

Marshall writes,

"It is emphatically the the province and duty of the Judicial department to say what the law is."

After that he goes on further to write, "a law repugnant to the Constitution is void." Marshall writes court decide whether a law conforms to the constitution or not.

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint


Too bad the State's don't agree with that petty autocrat hey?

John "the fascist totalitarian" Marshal can blather on about how powerful he is all day long. Of course, in the end he's simply a dumb ass in a black robe with nothing more than a pen to back up his autocratic rulings.

If the states say no, then the answer is no.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If the states say no, then the answer is no.

Not in every instance, according to the Supremacy Clause.

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.

Reasonable minds must prevail.

Let us take a LOOK at what is currently happening in the US.

Lawsuit against the health care bill GOES forward.

Missouri citizens whip the federal government the bird. 71% vs 29%!

Citizens are waking up to the FACT that both parties are just a paradigm.

I think the knowledge of the true LAW and the Constitution are spreading like wildfire.

Bout damn time!

Lincoln was a terrorist that hated blacks, wanted to ship them back to Africa, and did everything he could to provoke a war to obtain more power.

"You and we are different races..." "We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both" and "affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."

-Abraham Lincoln




Oh god, this last one... You're going to have a spaz attack. I guarantee it:





[edit on 8-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Lincoln was a racist pile of shat.

Lincoln was a totalitarian evil warmonger that managed to kill more Americans than any other president in US history, which is why he is held up by the left as a demi-god.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Lincoln was a terrorist that hated blacks, wanted to ship them back to Africa, and did everything he could to provoke a war to obtain more power.

"You and we are different races..." "We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races . . . . This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both" and "affords a reason at least why we should be separated . . . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."

-Abraham Lincoln

Source of these quotes? Full text and context? Also, they're divided with segments missing (...) so it seems there has been some editing here.

I am sure Lincoln would be considered a racist by modern standards. He was, after all, willing to allow slavery to continue if it would keep the Union together.

In truth, he was considerably less racist than the vast majority of whites at that time in history, certainly less so than most slave owners.

Regardless of what his personal views might have been, the fact is he did free the slaves. No one else before him had done anything close to that.

That is historical record and cannot be changed by any other names you want to call him.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by Sestias]

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

With all due respect, the proposition that the Constitution allows courts to interpret the law and strike down laws as unconstitutional is not something "taken out of context." Marbury clearly enables it.

Judges do not, as a matter of course, strike down laws unless they have been challenged as unconstitutional. Those challenging the constitutionality are we the people. Do you understand? Judges just don't sit up and take notice of a law passed by a legislature and then call a session to have that law reviewed for its Constitutionality. It takes an individual or party to challenge the Constitutionality.

Further, in the lower courts below Courts of Appeals, if a judge agrees on the unconstitutionality of a law, he is far less likely to strike that law down, and much more likely to dismiss the charges, or to rule in favor of the court party challenging the law as unconstitutional. Next, if it is a federal act of legislation then it can not be struck down by a lower court, but has to be struck down by The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear. Thus, the SCOTUS is not deciding "what the law is" until it decides "what the law is". This leaves many acts of legislation not ruled upon by The Supreme Court.

Even further, you most certainly are taken that ruling out of context in order to dismiss the fact that we the people have every right to decide what the law is. Chief Justice Marshall, when rendering his opinion, was speaking to the other two branches of government when he declared that it is the province of the Supreme Court to "decide what the law is".

Finally, there is the matter of the 18th Amendment, which was upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional, and we the people told all three branches of the federal government to piss off and mind their own damn business. Subsequently, the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, forcing Congress to do so.

reply to post by Sestias

Regardless of what his personal views might have been, the fact is he did free the slaves. No one else before him had done anything close to that.

That is historical record and cannot be changed by any other names you want to call him.

Exuse me?!?!
I know of a great many people who were all about the abolition of slavery long before Lincoln! Do George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamine Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine ring a bell?

Most of the Founding Fathers were for the abolition of slavery. John Adams was an outspoken foe of the institution. Alexander Hamilton founded the New York Manumission Society. Just before he died, Benjamin Franklin forwarded a petition from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society to Congress in 1790 to force the legislative body to stop the slave trade and work on a plan to abolish slavery. Thomas Paine wrote an influential essay in 1775 in the Pennsylvania Journal advocating abolition. George Washington grew to hate slavery and wrote that it was his fondest wish “to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.” As a young man, Thomas Jefferson was one of the strongest leaders in pushing for the abolition of slavery: he denounced the institution in his book Notes On The State of Virginia and formulated a plan of gradual abolition that featured an end to the slave trade, the prohibition of slavery, and the establishment of a date in which newly born children of slaves would be free. In the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson pushed in the Virginia legislature and the federal government to face up to the issue of slavery; in 1784, Jefferson pushed for a bill to prohibit slavery in the western territories that failed to pass by a single vote.

Source: www.everydaycitizen.com...



Enough said! The civil war was over states rights, plain and simple. The north only used the issue of slavery for a reason to envoke war.