Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine
Art VI, para 2...,
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 Contrary notwithstanding.
I'm no great connoisseur of the law or anything, but that sure sounds like a "prohibition" to me..
if a power has not been delegated to the federal government, that government simply does not have it. In that case it becomes a question of state law whether the power is held by a state or, failing that, by the people, having never been granted to either government.
In Tennessee, three times the state courts have ruled that the state legislature does NOT have the power to institute an income tax (at least once before the 16th Amendment was "ratified"). However, the Tennessee legislature also voted to ratify the 16th Amendment.
This causes the following question to arise: How can a legislature vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do not have the power to do?
States Rights ping
Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states.
You're missing the main point of it. The --- "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" -- is very clear language.
The Bill of Rights is irrelevant.
Our RKBA's is "irrelevant"? Bet me.
I am discussing the ORIGINAL cons, which was ratified w/out a BOR. Furthermore, the BOR did NOT apply to the states until after the Civil War.
You're parroting the Statist line. Art VI proves you wrong.
The BOR applied ONLY to the Federal Gov. Many of the states, for example, (VA included) actually had state supported churches. If you lived in VA,you paid taxes to support the state church. That simple. Again, the prohibitions in Art 1, sec 10 are indeed thin.
Thank you ray, -- its always fun to see another anti-constitutionalist out himself on FR.
Now that they were formally included, all of a sudden they became negotiable (those that were included), the federal government found a way to deny or alter some of the people's rights, giving the states the power to legislate some of those rights away. The second amendment comes to mind.
How convenient. State and federal governments working hand in hand to subvert the will of we the people. I don't think anyone will argue that the federal government will impose its will on the states (by virtue of contracts between the state and the fedguv), and at the same time, will withdraw its power and allow the state to frame its own laws against the rights of the people. Gun rights are not uniform, due to the doctrine of incorporation which allows states to write laws before the fedguv becomes involved.
But two things show both the state and the fedguv as inconsistent in practice. One is Roe v Wade, which is really a state problem, and the other is the second amendment, which the fedguv is supposed to enforce in favor of the people of all states. The 14th was supposed to be the teeth of the first Civil Rights act, but the fedguv deferred and allowed the states their Jim Crow practices. It wasn't until 100 years later that the fedguv created another Civil Rights Act and began enforcing them for the first time. (Thanks to Martin Luther King.)
It was as though the fedguv knew that it couldn't control how the states treated the blacks immediately after the civil, but it gave the states 100 years to get used to the idea that the 14th Amendment was going to be enforced, which it was upon the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Concerning indvidual rights, I'm with Forthedeclaration, and believe that unalienable rights are personal rights and neither the state nor the fedguv have been given power by the people to alter them. The federal government has enumerated powers, and they should have been more tightly defined on day one. States are also subject to the will of the people, and in that each state has a republican form of government, the rights of the very least Citizen can in no way be infringed upon by any kind of a majority vote.
In any case, Article VI para 2 (supreme law clause) is the logical formula to use in determining whose law is more supreme -- the people, the state or the federal government. I vote for the individual first, then the state, in matters not pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights, and then the federal government, in matters pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights which some states are prone to infringe upon. IMO.
A Southerner drafted the DOI. Get your facts straight.
I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved.
All states must adhere to the Federal Constitution and the principles of the Declaration.
It was as though the fedguv knew that it couldn't control how the states treated the blacks immediately after the civil, but it gave the states 100 years to get used to the idea that the 14th Amendment was going to be enforced, which it was upon the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I think the people just got tired of Reconstruction and were not too concerned about what happened to the Blacks.
The South just waited the North out.
Concerning indvidual rights, I'm with Forthedeclaration, and believe that unalienable rights are personal rights and neither the state nor the fedguv have been given power by the people to alter them. The federal government has enumerated powers, and they should have been more tightly defined on day one. States are also subject to the will of the people, and in that each state has a republican form of government, the rights of the very least Citizen can in no way be infringed upon by any kind of a majority vote. In any case, Article VI para 2 (supreme law clause) is the logical formula to use in determining whose law is more supreme -- the people, the state or the federal government. I vote for the individual first, then the state, in matters not pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights, and then the federal government, in matters pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights which some states are prone to infringe upon. IMO.
Agreed.
A State tryanny is no better then a Federal one.
This statement shows complete lack of American history knowledge. I hope you don't really mean this.
The Sons of the South have played an integral role in the founding of this Republic and have fought to maintain our sovereignty since it's inception. They were there in Korea, Vietnam, WWII, WWI, GWI, GWII, Revolutionary, WBTS, and every other conflict. The South has given her finest statesmen and soldiers to defend this Republic time and time again - that includes defending the DOI/Const/BOR.
And the pre-Civil War South rejected it.
Get your facts straight.
The Vice President of the South stated the war was about slavery and the South would correct the error of the DOI that áll men were created equal'
Well put.
You sum up in a few paragraphs undeniable Constitutional truths.
Yet day in, day out, self described conservatives on this site claim they cannot understand these basic principles about our liberties.
I fear for the republic.
--- "The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation."
-Arthur Koestler-
Thus, we are driven to the conclusion that the trouble with our species is an excess capacity for fanatical devotion to "the cause".
Where is that documented?
Did you just make this up?
Perhaps you meant A.H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Prob. referencing the "cornerstone" speech. Where are you getting your talking points from?
The 'sons of the south' are not being attacked on this thread.
Statism is.
Read Eastbound's post. Read the essay. -- They both made clear undeniable Constitutional truths.
Yet day in, day out, self described conservatives on this site claim they cannot understand these basic principles about our liberties.
Why is that?
It's a red herring and I won't let that slip.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or..."
Looks like the legislatures may vote on whether or not to ratify a proposed amendment without regard to whether or not any particular one of them has or doesn't have the power to do whatever the amendment authorizes.
More to the point of this thread:
Can a legislature vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do have the power to do?
Can the people vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do have the power to do?
By 'talking points' you mean facts!
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/6460/doct/861crnrstn.html
by Alexander H. Stephens Given extemporaneously, text from in Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, before, during, and since the War, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 717-729. I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]
. . . . But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] (emphasis added)
Yea, real defenders of liberty!
Whatever.
In context, the remark doesn't seem worth re-fighting the civil war.
Your point is easily refutable by "3/5" in the Constitution which applies to North and South.
Agreed.
Strictly speaking, homicide is a state issue, isn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.