Are our State Laws being replaced by Federal Laws?

Is there more Federalism in the background of the United States Constitution like a sub-conscious waiting to come to the forefront?

Are the laws we so desire through State laws being diminished and replaced more with federalism?

Encarta Encyclopedia:
FEDERALISM:
A political system in which several states or regions defer some powers, e.g. in foreign affairs, to a central government while retaining a limited measure of self-government

[edit on 20-6-2008 by menguard]

We had one President who taught the Constitution at college before entering politics.

Federalism
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the division
of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the
States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to ensure
that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the executive
departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of
policies, and to further the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions....
Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing
policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the
following fundamental federalism principles:
(a) Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national
in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of
government closest to the people.
(b) The people of the States created the national government and delegated
to it enumerated governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save
those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to
the States or to the people.
(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State
and national, is inherent in the very structure of the Constitution and is
formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the
Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to
define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.
(e) The Framers recognized that the States possess unique authorities,
qualities, and abilities to meet the needs of the people and should function
as laboratories of democracy.
in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according
to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened
public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment
with a variety of approaches to public issues. One-size-fits-all approaches
to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions
to those problems.
(g) Acts of the national government—whether legislative, executive, or
judicial in nature—that exceed the enumerated powers of that government
under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by
the Framers.
(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility
of—and should encourage opportunities for—individuals, families, neighborhoods,
local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal,
social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.
(i) The national government should be deferential to the States when
taking action that affects the policymaking discretion of the States and
should act only with the greatest caution where State or local governments
have identified uncertainties regarding the constitutional or statutory authority
of the national government.
Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the
fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, agencies shall adhere,
to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating
and implementing policies that have federalism implications:
(a) There shall be strict adherence to constitutional principles.

Why did 'our man slick' issue such an Executive Order?

(a) There shall be strict adherence to constitutional principles

His oath of office required he try to reign in the out of control unconstitutional government he had inherited from Reagan and Bush:

The Constitution of the United States, Article. II., Section. 1.
The President shall,...
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
(paragraph 7-8)

After waco, when President Clinton found out that the federal employees he had inherited from Reagan and Bush sometimes acted more like thugs than cops.
He tried to reform government:
Executive Order 12866
Regulatory Planning and Review
Signed: September 30, 1993
Executive Order 12875
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Signed: October 26, 1993

We may remember many government employees seem to have used those Executive Order for toilet paper. So he tried again:

Federalism: EO 13083
Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the
fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this order, agencies
shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when
formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:
(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles.

He later worded it more strongly:

Federalism: EO 13132
Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. ...
(a) There shall be strict adherence to constitutional principles

www.archives.gov...

www.archives.gov...
Federalism: EO 13083; EO 13095; EO 13132

Federalism is NOT the problem.
Federalism's >"strict adherence to constitutional principles"

Btw there is a lot of false information, about Clinton's Executive Orders, on the internet, is why I choose the National Archives as source.
NARA just archive documents.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by himself]

To understand the relationship between Federal and State governments, you will be shocked to learn what history teaches us...


Illegitimate Federal Government and the Rule of Martial Law in the United States

Read at that topic and googled for more information.
Great information on the rebellion. Thanks.
A one sided view that requires ignoring parts of the Constitution that you disagree with.
I take every single word of Our US Constitution and ALL Amendments into consideration.
I respectfully disagree.


The Constitution says the Federal government (within constitutional limits) is Supreme and I accept the US Constitution.
That you disagree with the US Constitution saddens me.

The United States Constitution
Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ..., 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....

Had those rebels actually read the US Constitution (instead of believing fanatical leaders) they would have realized they were traitors:

The United States Constitution
Article. III. -Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.