BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
There's a difference between "arguing" and "fighting."
Personally, I prefer the former.
Personally, I prefer the former.
New York City Is Still Running from Supreme Court Review of Gun Laws
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Pretty simple stuff? Maybe to simple to grasp?
Clause 2 of Article 6: the Supremacy Clause
Clause 2 of Article 6 is known as the Supremacy clause. In this clause, the Constitution says that any federal laws that are made according to the Constitution are the supreme laws. That means that state laws that go against federal laws are not valid. Even state courts must follow federal law before state law.
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution first says that any debts or engagements that the country was involved in before the Constitution was put into action are still valid. Article 6 also says that the United States Constitution is the highest law of the country and that all state and federal officers and judges have to uphold the Constitution and all of its rules.
Clause 2 of Article 6: the Supremacy Clause
Clause 2 of Article 6 is known as the Supremacy clause. In this clause, the Constitution says that any federal laws that are made according to the Constitution are the supreme laws. That means that state laws that go against federal laws are not valid. Even state courts must follow federal law before state law.
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution first says that any debts or engagements that the country was involved in before the Constitution was put into action are still valid. Article 6 also says that the United States Constitution is the highest law of the country and that all state and federal officers and judges have to uphold the Constitution and all of its rules.
Celt
.338 Win Mag
I prefer the latter.
So lets use your arguement, Clause 2 of Article 6: the Supremacy Clause
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/09/09/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-bill-of-rights/
The Supremacy Clause and the Bill of Rights
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Sep 9, 2017|Categories: 14th Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Incorporation Doctrine, Supremacy Clause
Many Americans believe the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments. Most who hold this position rely on the 14th Amendment and the “incorporation doctrine” to support their position. But some proponents of using federal power to restrict state and local actions through the Bill of Rights use tortured legal reasoning to argue the Bill of Rights were always intended to apply to the states, specifically the Second Amendment.
One such exercise in legal gymnastics leans on the Supremacy Clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Here’s an example of this reasoning.
“As I understand the Supremacy Clause, it appears that the state governments are also prohibited from ‘infringing’ on our individual right to ‘keep and bear Arms.’ The Supremacy Claus States that, ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; … Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding.’
“All amendments to the Constitution, once ratified, became ‘part of’ the US Constitution, and therefor are the ‘supreme Law of the Land.'”
This assertion seems plausible on the surface. But the error in this logic lies in using the Supremacy Clause to reinterpret the Bill of Rights instead of simply applying the original meaning and intent of the amendments as the “supreme law of the land.”
As part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights clearly stands as the supreme law of the land. But this fact tells us nothing about what the specific amendments mean, or how they apply. It only tells us that whatever they mean, and however they apply, they are the supreme law of the land.
It is clear from the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the drafting process and debates in Congress, and from the ratification debates in the states, that the Bill of Rights was intended to serve as a restriction on federal power only – not state power. Zero evidence exists that anybody in the founding era thought the Bill of Rights would apply to the states. In fact, when Madison introduced the Amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights, he proposed that some restrictions should apply to state governments. Those proposals were rejected during the drafting process in Congress.
Clearly the original intent was that the Bill of Rights would serve as restrictions on federal power only.
Therefore, per the Second Amendment, the federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. As drafted and ratified, this amendment was understood to place no restrictions on the states. This stands as the supreme law of the land. An application of the amendment to the states cannot be the supreme law of the land because that was never intended. No legal rule of construction exists that allows you to go back after the fact and reinterpret the words of the Bill of Rights in light of the supremacy clause in order to change its meaning into something that was never intended.
This fallacious reading of the supremacy clause and the Bill of Rights roots itself in a deeper misunderstanding. Most Americans think the United States operate under a nationalist political system with the states subservient to the central authority. In fact, the states remain independent and sovereign. The general government possesses limited authority subject to powers delegated to it by the states. In fact, the states and the central authority generally operate in totally separate spheres. The Bill of Rights was ratified to clarify the limits on federal authority and has nothing to do with state governments. They operate under state constitutions with their own restrictions.
Although Chief Justice John Marshall was an unapologetic advocate for national power, he explained how constitutions apply in different spheres, and the limits of the Bill of Rights beautifully in his opinion in Barron v. Baltimore.
“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
“If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest”
Tags: bill-of-rights, Incorporation Doctrine, Supremacy Clause
So the Supremacy Clause actually reaffirms the BOR's did not apply to the States!
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/09/09/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-bill-of-rights/
The Supremacy Clause and the Bill of Rights
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Sep 9, 2017|Categories: 14th Amendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Incorporation Doctrine, Supremacy Clause
Many Americans believe the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments. Most who hold this position rely on the 14th Amendment and the “incorporation doctrine” to support their position. But some proponents of using federal power to restrict state and local actions through the Bill of Rights use tortured legal reasoning to argue the Bill of Rights were always intended to apply to the states, specifically the Second Amendment.
One such exercise in legal gymnastics leans on the Supremacy Clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Here’s an example of this reasoning.
“As I understand the Supremacy Clause, it appears that the state governments are also prohibited from ‘infringing’ on our individual right to ‘keep and bear Arms.’ The Supremacy Claus States that, ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; … Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding.’
“All amendments to the Constitution, once ratified, became ‘part of’ the US Constitution, and therefor are the ‘supreme Law of the Land.'”
This assertion seems plausible on the surface. But the error in this logic lies in using the Supremacy Clause to reinterpret the Bill of Rights instead of simply applying the original meaning and intent of the amendments as the “supreme law of the land.”
As part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights clearly stands as the supreme law of the land. But this fact tells us nothing about what the specific amendments mean, or how they apply. It only tells us that whatever they mean, and however they apply, they are the supreme law of the land.
It is clear from the preamble to the Bill of Rights, the drafting process and debates in Congress, and from the ratification debates in the states, that the Bill of Rights was intended to serve as a restriction on federal power only – not state power. Zero evidence exists that anybody in the founding era thought the Bill of Rights would apply to the states. In fact, when Madison introduced the Amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights, he proposed that some restrictions should apply to state governments. Those proposals were rejected during the drafting process in Congress.
Clearly the original intent was that the Bill of Rights would serve as restrictions on federal power only.
Therefore, per the Second Amendment, the federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. As drafted and ratified, this amendment was understood to place no restrictions on the states. This stands as the supreme law of the land. An application of the amendment to the states cannot be the supreme law of the land because that was never intended. No legal rule of construction exists that allows you to go back after the fact and reinterpret the words of the Bill of Rights in light of the supremacy clause in order to change its meaning into something that was never intended.
This fallacious reading of the supremacy clause and the Bill of Rights roots itself in a deeper misunderstanding. Most Americans think the United States operate under a nationalist political system with the states subservient to the central authority. In fact, the states remain independent and sovereign. The general government possesses limited authority subject to powers delegated to it by the states. In fact, the states and the central authority generally operate in totally separate spheres. The Bill of Rights was ratified to clarify the limits on federal authority and has nothing to do with state governments. They operate under state constitutions with their own restrictions.
Although Chief Justice John Marshall was an unapologetic advocate for national power, he explained how constitutions apply in different spheres, and the limits of the Bill of Rights beautifully in his opinion in Barron v. Baltimore.
“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.
“If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest”
Tags: bill-of-rights, Incorporation Doctrine, Supremacy Clause
So the Supremacy Clause actually reaffirms the BOR's did not apply to the States!
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
Lol I thought this was over. 
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Lol I thought this was over.
It should be after that post! It puts Clause 2 of Article 6: the Supremacy Clause to sleep!
Last edited:
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Yet basic common sense says wrong? Right protected for the people are applied to the states. The state does have it own right to administer itself provided it doesn’t infringe on the rights of the people which are in the constitution particularly the BOR.
Your actually arguing that the state has a right to trample any right which would be in direct conflict with the intent of the framers and the cause of revolution to begin with.
That’s all I’m going to say we can post others conflicting l enlightened legal info all day but I suspect it would be time wasted
The States had there own Constitutions and were not going to give up that much power to a National Government, As you said they just fought a Revolution against an Almighty Power!
Last edited:
pjzwtl
.308 Win
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Hahaha. So it took you a couple of days to pick and choose and cherry pick an article that perhaps you can use to defend the point that a state could infringe on your rights because it eats away at you that they can’t even though in your heart you know that it’s ridiculous if it only applied to Washington DC.
It’s a moot point. Whether the constitution applied to the states or not in the past (is totally ridiculous if it didn’t), it definitively does now but in every thread you go bonkers defending that they can or could. It’s really telling about you. Proof positive of your Fuddery. I had you pegged correctly from the beginning.
And I saw that ridiculous article in the past. Why didn’t you pick the one of many others that actually show word for word what I’ve been saying? Why not pick the ones that show that Article 6 made the Constitution and all treaties applicable to the states and the 10th Amendment just gave the states sovereignty only on issues not regarding the powers given to the federal government by the constitution (All the Articles preceding the Bill of Rights that makes the government work)?
The 10th Amendment never invalidated Article 6. Article 6 still stands. All it did was in clear language was give power to the states and to the people all issues not covered in the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land. Article 6 was never repealed and stricken.
Because of judges and people like yourself that perverse the 10th Amendment , an additional amendment was added to make it clearer. I mean really. Would the Founders not want it’s people to not have the freedom of speech or religion? Because not everyone can live only in Washington DC.
It’s a moot point. Whether the constitution applied to the states or not in the past (is totally ridiculous if it didn’t), it definitively does now but in every thread you go bonkers defending that they can or could. It’s really telling about you. Proof positive of your Fuddery. I had you pegged correctly from the beginning.
And I saw that ridiculous article in the past. Why didn’t you pick the one of many others that actually show word for word what I’ve been saying? Why not pick the ones that show that Article 6 made the Constitution and all treaties applicable to the states and the 10th Amendment just gave the states sovereignty only on issues not regarding the powers given to the federal government by the constitution (All the Articles preceding the Bill of Rights that makes the government work)?
The 10th Amendment never invalidated Article 6. Article 6 still stands. All it did was in clear language was give power to the states and to the people all issues not covered in the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land. Article 6 was never repealed and stricken.
Because of judges and people like yourself that perverse the 10th Amendment , an additional amendment was added to make it clearer. I mean really. Would the Founders not want it’s people to not have the freedom of speech or religion? Because not everyone can live only in Washington DC.
Last edited:
Of course it is a ridiculous article because you don't like it!
Well here is another one that says word for word, And your not going to like this one either!
Federal Supremacy vs. States’ Rights :: The North American Law Center
Federal Supremacy vs. States’ Rights
POSTED BY EDITOR ON
APRIL 23, 2014
· NO COMMENTS
Save189
FEDERAL SUPREMACY VS. STATES’ RIGHTS
By JB Williams
jb.uspu@gmail.com
In the United States of America, our U.S. Constitution creates a Constitutional Representative Republic, as opposed to the myth that we are a pure democracy. That Constitution lays out the specific enumerated powers of each of three branches of the Federal government, and the authorities to carry out those assigned duties.
The U.S. Bill of Rights is an additional statement of restrictions upon Federal authority, not the least of which is the Tenth Amendment, protecting the Rights of a sovereign state and the people who reside within each state.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – Amendment X
How does Amendment X line up with the Federal Supremacy clause found in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the federal constitution and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions?
“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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution
Is a balance of powers between the states and the federal government an “unconstitutional” concept? Or is this a highly “constitutional” concept? Is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution in conflict with Amendment X of the Bill of Rights? Does the Supremacy Clause take precedence over Amendment X, or does Amendment X take precedence over the Supremacy Clause?
Only in recent years has this issue become bastardized by “legal experts,” including a number of legal beagles at so-called “conservative think tanks” like Heritage Foundation, Wall Builders and ALEC, all of which mysteriously find themselves doing the bidding of the tyrannical Fed on far too many occasions.
As is always the case with legal text, the devil is in the details… In this case, the details of the Supremacy Clause itself…
The first key phrase is “made in pursuance thereof…” – Before any federal law can enjoy federal legal supremacy, it must meet the stated standards of this section, which states that all federal laws must be made first and foremost in pursuance (or furtherance) of the Constitution itself, to include the Bill of Rights, which became an equal part of the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791.
“…that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;” – Resolved in the Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights
Next, federal laws “shall be made, under the authority of the United States” in order to enjoy federal supremacy. The authority referred to in this section of the Supremacy clause is the authorities granted the Federal government by the people and the states under the enumerated powers of each branch of the Federal government.
To enjoy supremacy, a federal law must first be “made in pursuance thereof” (all other constitutional text) and be “made under the authority of the United States,” as defined in the enumerated powers of the Federal government according to the U.S. Constitution.
To put a fine point on the matter, the Constitution of the United States assigns all “law-making” authority to Congress alone, the legislative branch. This means that policies set by either the Executive branch or the Judicial branch cannot possibly be “laws,” according to the Constitution.
Further, only when Congress enacts laws which are “in pursuance thereof” – within the purview of, or under the authority granted via the Constitution, and not in conflict with the Bill of Rights, can those laws enjoy Supremacy.
Policies set by the Executive or Judicial branch are not laws at all. Therefore, they cannot enjoy supremacy in a Constitutional Representative Republic. Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution states unequivocally that – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Constitutional Laws do indeed enjoy Federal Supremacy. However, what about unconstitutional acts of the Federal government? Do unconstitutional intrusions into states or individual rights also enjoy Federal Supremacy?
According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the answer is an unambiguous NO! As all governmental powers are derived by the consent of the people… the people have the final say.
But it is the U.S. Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction on any dispute over constitutional authority arising between a state, the people and the Federal government.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” – Article III – Section II – Clause II
The Article VI Supremacy Clause protects “constitutional” laws passed by the law-making branch of the Federal government, so long as they are passed by constitutional means and do not violate any constitutionally protected rights.
However, Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution protects the states and the people from the “unconstitutional” acts of the Federal government. Acts which are beyond the authority granted each branch, or are in conflict with constitutionally protected rights, are themselves, “unconstitutional.” As such, they enjoy no force of law at all, much less any form of supremacy.
Although many state legislators remain entirely misguided on the subject, millions of American citizens are awakening to the reality that their government has been functioning in a tyrannical “unconstitutional” manner for decades now.
As long as state legislators keep listening to federal “experts” on the subject, they will remain misguided and unable to represent the interests of their increasingly angry and desperate constituents.
But if the people will take the time to read and understand the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they can properly educate their state legislators and only then can they begin to work together to reinstate the proper balance of powers assured every state and every citizen in our Founding documents.
In a Constitutional Representative Republic, the Constitution has Supremacy, not the federal authority. The federal authority is limited to enumerated powers and constitutional processes. The people, not an unelected oligarchy of lifetime political appointees, are the final arbiters of what is or isn’t constitutional.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Did you even read that article you just posted? I’m failing to see your point.Of course it is a ridiculous article because you don't like it!
Well here is another one that says word for word, And your not going to like this one either!
Federal Supremacy vs. States’ Rights :: The North American Law Center
Federal Supremacy vs. States’ Rights
POSTED BY EDITOR ON
APRIL 23, 2014
· NO COMMENTS
Save189
FEDERAL SUPREMACY VS. STATES’ RIGHTS
By JB Williams
jb.uspu@gmail.com
In the United States of America, our U.S. Constitution creates a Constitutional Representative Republic, as opposed to the myth that we are a pure democracy. That Constitution lays out the specific enumerated powers of each of three branches of the Federal government, and the authorities to carry out those assigned duties.
The U.S. Bill of Rights is an additional statement of restrictions upon Federal authority, not the least of which is the Tenth Amendment, protecting the Rights of a sovereign state and the people who reside within each state.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – Amendment X
How does Amendment X line up with the Federal Supremacy clause found in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that the federal constitution and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions?
“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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution
Is a balance of powers between the states and the federal government an “unconstitutional” concept? Or is this a highly “constitutional” concept? Is Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution in conflict with Amendment X of the Bill of Rights? Does the Supremacy Clause take precedence over Amendment X, or does Amendment X take precedence over the Supremacy Clause?
Only in recent years has this issue become bastardized by “legal experts,” including a number of legal beagles at so-called “conservative think tanks” like Heritage Foundation, Wall Builders and ALEC, all of which mysteriously find themselves doing the bidding of the tyrannical Fed on far too many occasions.
As is always the case with legal text, the devil is in the details… In this case, the details of the Supremacy Clause itself…
The first key phrase is “made in pursuance thereof…” – Before any federal law can enjoy federal legal supremacy, it must meet the stated standards of this section, which states that all federal laws must be made first and foremost in pursuance (or furtherance) of the Constitution itself, to include the Bill of Rights, which became an equal part of the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791.
“…that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;” – Resolved in the Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights
Next, federal laws “shall be made, under the authority of the United States” in order to enjoy federal supremacy. The authority referred to in this section of the Supremacy clause is the authorities granted the Federal government by the people and the states under the enumerated powers of each branch of the Federal government.
To enjoy supremacy, a federal law must first be “made in pursuance thereof” (all other constitutional text) and be “made under the authority of the United States,” as defined in the enumerated powers of the Federal government according to the U.S. Constitution.
To put a fine point on the matter, the Constitution of the United States assigns all “law-making” authority to Congress alone, the legislative branch. This means that policies set by either the Executive branch or the Judicial branch cannot possibly be “laws,” according to the Constitution.
Further, only when Congress enacts laws which are “in pursuance thereof” – within the purview of, or under the authority granted via the Constitution, and not in conflict with the Bill of Rights, can those laws enjoy Supremacy.
Policies set by the Executive or Judicial branch are not laws at all. Therefore, they cannot enjoy supremacy in a Constitutional Representative Republic. Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution states unequivocally that – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Constitutional Laws do indeed enjoy Federal Supremacy. However, what about unconstitutional acts of the Federal government? Do unconstitutional intrusions into states or individual rights also enjoy Federal Supremacy?
According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the answer is an unambiguous NO! As all governmental powers are derived by the consent of the people… the people have the final say.
But it is the U.S. Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction on any dispute over constitutional authority arising between a state, the people and the Federal government.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” – Article III – Section II – Clause II
The Article VI Supremacy Clause protects “constitutional” laws passed by the law-making branch of the Federal government, so long as they are passed by constitutional means and do not violate any constitutionally protected rights.
However, Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution protects the states and the people from the “unconstitutional” acts of the Federal government. Acts which are beyond the authority granted each branch, or are in conflict with constitutionally protected rights, are themselves, “unconstitutional.” As such, they enjoy no force of law at all, much less any form of supremacy.
Although many state legislators remain entirely misguided on the subject, millions of American citizens are awakening to the reality that their government has been functioning in a tyrannical “unconstitutional” manner for decades now.
As long as state legislators keep listening to federal “experts” on the subject, they will remain misguided and unable to represent the interests of their increasingly angry and desperate constituents.
But if the people will take the time to read and understand the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, they can properly educate their state legislators and only then can they begin to work together to reinstate the proper balance of powers assured every state and every citizen in our Founding documents.
In a Constitutional Representative Republic, the Constitution has Supremacy, not the federal authority. The federal authority is limited to enumerated powers and constitutional processes. The people, not an unelected oligarchy of lifetime political appointees, are the final arbiters of what is or isn’t constitutional.
The first key phrase is “made in pursuance thereof…” – Before any federal law can enjoy federal legal supremacy, it must meet the stated standards of this section, which states that all federal laws must be made first and foremost in pursuance (or furtherance) of the Constitution itself, to include the Bill of Rights, which became an equal part of the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
pur·su·ance
(pər-so͞o′əns)
n.
A carrying out or putting into effect; prosecution.
thereof
ADVERB
formal
(pər-so͞o′əns)
n.
A carrying out or putting into effect; prosecution.
thereof
ADVERB
formal
- Of the thing just mentioned; of that.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That 2nd Article above validated what I’ve been saying.
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;( all laws of the United States shall be carried out as per the constitution) 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI,
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;( all laws of the United States shall be carried out as per the constitution) 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” – Article VI,
Not really! But you are not total wrong. Remember punctuation matters!
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This Constitution, (Which includes the BOR's )
and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;( all laws of the United States shall be carried out as per the constitution) and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; (Laws only Congress can make that are constitutional)
and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The Bill of Rights was not made by Congress.
*"The first key phrase is “made in pursuance thereof…” – Before any federal law can enjoy federal legal supremacy, it must meet the stated standards of this section, which states that all federal laws must be made first and foremost in pursuance (or furtherance) of the Constitution itself, to include the Bill of Rights, which became an equal part of the U.S. Constitution on December 15, 1791.
“…that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;” – Resolved in the Preamble to the U.S. Bill of Rights
Next, federal laws “shall be made, under the authority of the United States” in order to enjoy federal supremacy. The authority referred to in this section of the Supremacy clause is the authorities granted the Federal government by the people and the states under the enumerated powers of each branch of the Federal government.
To enjoy supremacy, a federal law must first be “made in pursuance thereof” (all other constitutional text) and be “made under the authority of the United States,” as defined in the enumerated powers of the Federal government according to the U.S. Constitution.
To put a fine point on the matter, the Constitution of the United States assigns all “law-making” authority to Congress alone, the legislative branch. This means that policies set by either the Executive branch or the Judicial branch cannot possibly be “laws,” according to the Constitution.
Further, only when Congress enacts laws which are “in pursuance thereof” – within the purview of, or under the authority granted via the Constitution, and not in conflict with the Bill of Rights, can those laws enjoy Supremacy.
Policies set by the Executive or Judicial branch are not laws at all. Therefore, they cannot enjoy supremacy in a Constitutional Representative Republic. Amendment X of the U.S. Constitution states unequivocally that – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Constitutional Laws do indeed enjoy Federal Supremacy. However, what about unconstitutional acts of the Federal government? Do unconstitutional intrusions into states or individual rights also enjoy Federal Supremacy?
According to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the answer is an unambiguous NO! As all governmental powers are derived by the consent of the people… the people have the final say.*
So Article 6 does not incorporate the BOR's to the States.
Reread the article, I've read it several times and have saved it for future discussions.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
What about “ This Constitution” don’t you understand? There is an “And” after that for the argument you are using regarding laws passed. So it means this constitution and all federal laws passed by Congress. Both.
And why are you going bonkers defending that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to the states despite it not making sense if it didn’t? Why?
Was the BOR's directed at the people? No it was the people restricting the Federal Government!
Article 6 only applies to laws passed by Congress that are Constitutional ( pass scrutiny of the BOR's ) 10th Amendment. So sticking to the 2A not applying to the States we just fought a war where the Central Government wanted to disarm us, Correct do you think that the States were thinking of disarming their Citizens went they had Militia requirements by law?
*The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time.[1]
During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were members of the militia, depending on the respective states rule.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the US Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' paramount vision of the militia in 1787.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[6][7]*
*In 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which contained a provision for raising a confederal militia that consent would be required from nine of the 13 States. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states,
... every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
Some militia units appeared without adequate arms, as evidenced in this letter from John Adams to his wife, dated August 26, 1777:
The militia are turning out with great alacrity both in Maryland and Pennsylvania. They are distressed for want of arms. Many have none, we shall rake and scrape enough to do Howe's business, by favor of the Heaven.[20]*
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Of course it was. It was written to restrict the government in not infringing on people’s rights. It’s absurd to think that it was only intended for the citizenry of Washington DC to be protected only and not applicable to a citizen in Massachusetts for example if a state was infringing on his right to a speedy trial for example.
Why do you think an Amendment was added later to clear up the perversion judges were using in misinterpreting the 10th Amendment?
Why are you always arguing this anyway?
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Don’t bother. It’s irrelevant. It applies now even it didn’t. All moot. But you still want it to not apply so you’ll respond anyway.Now this is just to funny, I will reply later!!
C3D
.308 Win
In case you missed it, New York City filed its briefs (two):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...416324_NYSRPA v CNY Brief for Respondents.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...A v CNY Respondents Supplemental Appendix.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...416324_NYSRPA v CNY Brief for Respondents.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...A v CNY Respondents Supplemental Appendix.pdf
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Seriously, you guys should take this argument to it's own thread. I think it's great back and forth but this same argument has derailed at least two threads that I know of.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I mean seriously. I keep checking in to see if there have been any actual developments. Take it to PM guys.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
States can contradict federal law if it’s not supported by the constitution. That’s why the commerce clause is used to “justify “ the federal law.