Top 10 Most Outrageous Government Programs

HumanEventsOnline ^ | 03/15/03 | Human Events Staff

[Copernicus]

Why did we put this list together?

Consider what John Erlenborn, president of the Legal Services Corporation, said when we asked him to cite the language in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to run a legal services corporation.

“I don’t know,’ he said. “The general welfare clause.”

Erlenborn’s uncertainty, and apparent insouciance, about the constitutional justification for his own agency may explain why a group of conservative leaders assembled by Human Events picked LSC and the nine other items for our “most outrageous” list.

LSC, which finished Number 1, was not the only program whose spokesman found it difficult or impossible to point to constitutional language authorizing what it does.

Arguably, all the programs on our list lack a constitutional mandate.

Certainly, none deserves to continue drawing on the hard-earned income of American workers.

[Copernicus]

I hope this wasn't already posted,I did a title search.

Certainly a long overdue discussion to initiate.

The real bad news: Richard Nixon is responsible for more outrageous government than Lyndon Johnson.

It is on the cover of Human Events so it must be true.

Best regards to all,

[error99]

bump

[Copernicus]

I haven't finished reading this article, but I don't think importing Somali Bantu's made the top ten list.

Maybe next year...

[Charles Henrickson]

1. Social Security
2. Medicare

Combined, these two unconstitutional wealth-redistribution (i.e., involuntary servitude) programs make up over half the federal budget. All the other unconstitutional federal programs pale by comparison.

[MIgramma]

As for me, I'd like to see that guy, I forget his name, who's always hawking his books on how to get millions form the Federal govt. put out of business.
If all of those give-aways he "finds" were eliinated we'd nave more money SOMEWHERE!

[Eagle Eye]

The DEA and the ATF.

[dalereed]

"1. Social Security
2. Medicare "

You beat me to it!

I'm a senior and don't have any kind of pension but these 2 programs should be eliminated now! They should have never been started, both being unconstitutional!

[Drango]

Hmmmmm....Public Broadcasting, the proganda wing for the left, only got 23 points...

[Jhoffa_]

I see McCain made the list.. All that hard work has finally paid off! Yessiree Bob, he comes in at #2.

BTW, Willie Green is liable to be highly pissed when he sees AMTRAK listed there.

[Charles Henrickson]

I think it would be harder to come up with ten federal programs that are not outrageous. Let's see . . . national defense, national currency, maybe a few others that are actually in the Constitution. . . .

[3catsanadog]

I nominate the SSI program which gives "crazy" checks to alcoholics and drug addicts.

[Jhoffa_]

That's convenient.. As I was considering becoming an alcoholic anyway.

[tahiti]

I know the following will be hard to believe but you can do the research just as I did.

Social Security is constitutional because it is voluntary for U.S. citizens.

The first SS law was held unconstitutional in 1935 in the court case Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad.

So, in order to get around that problem, FDR signed a treaty, International Labor Agreement, with the advise and consent of the Senate.

Article VI, Section 2,

"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 the contrary notwithstanding."

Medicaid is constitutional becuase of,

Article I, Section 8 Clause 1.

"1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:"

The Medicaid tax is an excise tax. It is uniform throughout the US. Everyone pays and everyone pays the same percentage rate of tax.

These are the short answers to the question of constitutionallity of SS and Medicaid.

We citizens need to fear treaties as the greatest threat to our liberty and sovereignity.

The EPA exists because of treaties signed by Nixon. Why do you think the Democrats want the Kyoto treaty signed so badly.

[cmsgop]

The "Pixie Aid" really gets my Shih-Tzu.......

[38special]

EPA The EPA sucks big time!

[Jhoffa_]

Those pixie bastards.. Picnic basket raiding, government aid sucking, head wear making fun of little so and so's..

[cmsgop]

You Need your own show on HBO. Just let me be head writer,OK?

[FreedomCalls]

A link to the actual list.

[Jhoffa_]

Mental note, get a couple of casting couches from the furniture store..

[cmsgop]

They will be Leather.With Mini-Fridges built in..........

[Jhoffa_]

works for me..

But how will we go about explaining to our female guests that these are indeed "casting couches"

I mean, what if a really hot guest has never heard of one before? Wouldn't that be akward?

"Well, it's a casting couch.. You know, a casting couch. C-a-s-t-i-n-g C-o-u-c-h you dumb broad. Ahhh, just nevermind and get yer shirt off."

[cmsgop]

But how will we go about explaining to our female guests that these are indeed "casting couches"

Don't Have to. Thats what Coors Light,Corona,and Jose Cuervo are for...

My Gosh, Learn How To Delegate Man!

[Jhoffa_]

My Gosh, Learn How To Delegate Man!

You're right.. I will hire some eunichs to strip them for me first.

[vannrox]

Ten Most Outrageous Government Programs

1. Legal Services Corporation

• Score: 48
• Started when: 1974
• By whom: President Richard Nixon proposed the Legal Services Corporation. Liberal Republican Sen. Jacob Javits (N.Y.) was the principal sponsor.
• Why: “To help poor people with their legal needs,” former Rep. John Erlenborn (R.-Ill.) told Human Events. Erlenborn, one of the floor managers for the LSC bill, is now LSC’s president.
• What it does: LSC gives grants to groups of lawyers who often use the money for leftist lawsuits. Grantees have sued to keep criminals from being evicted from public housing, to help illegal aliens get government benefits, and to throw out ballots of military personnel in Texas. In 1996, Congress imposed new restrictions on LSC funding, trying to stem politicized suits. But Ken Boehm of the National and Legal Policy Center says LSC grantees strive to circumvent these restrictions. Erlenborn says LSC has reformed and only “helps poor people who are taken advantage of.”
• Cost: LSC received $338.8 million in fiscal 2003, a $9.5-million increase. President Bush’s budget requested no increase for fiscal 2004, but Erlenborn says the funding level is still under negotiation.
• Constitutional provision: “Probably the same one that lets the federal government build highways,” said Erlenborn. “I don’t know. The general welfare clause.”

2. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act

• Score: 46
• Started when: 2002
• By whom: Sponsored by Senators John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), and Representatives Chris Shays (R.-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D.-Mass.). President George W. Bush signed it into law.
• Why: To allegedly “clean up” financing of federal election campaigns—an issue sparked by the corrupt financing of President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.
• What it does: It prevents political parties from raising funds that are not allocated to specific candidates—so-called “soft money”—and bars citizens groups from using candidates’ names or pictures in broadcast advertising during the weeks before elections. In restricting political speech it flagrantly violates the 1st Amendment. It also protects incumbents from challengers and from issue-oriented groups opposed to their voting records. Only candidates and journalists—not citizens—are allowed to speak freely in the media prior to an election.
• Cost:  The major cost is in lost freedom. But with enactment of McCain-Feingold, the Federal Election Commission’s budget will swell 10%, from $45 million in 2003 to $50 million for 2004.
• Constitutional provision: FEC Spokesman Ian Stirton said, “The Supreme Court will address the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold.”

3. Davis-Bacon Act

• Score: 45
• Started when: 1931
• By whom: President Herbert Hoover signed the Davis-Bacon Act. It was named for its chief sponsors, Rep. Robert Bacon (R.-N.Y.) and Sen. James J. Davis (R.-Pa.).
• Why: The law was designed to address what its big-labor supporters described as the “growing menace” of black workers who were depressing the wages of employees working for government contractors. Testifying in favor of Davis-Bacon, American Federation of Labor President William Green said, “Colored labor is being brought in to demoralize wages.” Rep. John Cochran (D.-Mo.) said, “I have received numerous complaints in recent months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics, getting work and bringing in employees from the south.”
• What it does: Davis-Bacon requires government contractors to pay workers no less than the “prevailing” local wage for the type of labor they perform. Labor Department bureaucrats in consultation with union officials and major contractors determine the “prevailing” wage for all types of labor in all regions of the country. This tends to freeze out non-union workers and small contractors who compete in the free market by working for less.
• Cost: The Senate Republican Policy Committee says Davis-Bacon increases the cost of federal construction projects by 38%. The Congressional Budget Office recommended repeal of Davis-Bacon in 2001, estimating it would save taxpayers $10.5 billion through 2011.
• Constitutional provision: Labor Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Sue Hensley said: “That question would probably be better posed to Congress, since they passed the Davis-Bacon Act.”

4. Corporation for National and Community Service/AmeriCorps

• Score: 44
• Started when: 1993
• By whom: President Bill Clinton proposed CNCS/AmeriCorps. Rep. Matthew Martinez (D.-Calif.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.) were the principal sponsors.
• Why: To subsidize volunteerism.
• What it does: Under CNCS, AmeriCorps and other volunteerism-promoting agencies such as Senior Corps hand out grants to “state and local governments, Indian tribes, public and private nonprofit organizations and higher education institutions” to sponsor volunteer programs. CNCS has introduced the oxymoron “paid volunteer” to the American political lexicon. The General Accounting Office has found that CNCS “volunteers” cost from $8,000 to $100,000 each.
• Cost: CNCS received $786 million in fiscal 2003. The administration is requesting $962 million for 2004, an increase of $176 million, or 22%. The National Taxpayers Union says CNCS has received a total of $6 billion since 1994.
• Constitutional provision: CNCS Spokesman Sandy Scott said, “I guess you could ask that about any government program.”

5. Endangered Species Act

• Score: 42
• Started when: 1973
• By whom: President Richard Nixon proposed it. Rep. John Dingell (D.-Mich.) and Sen. Harrison Williams (D.-N.J.) were its principal sponsors.
• Why: “[T]o protect endangered species of wildlife,” said Nixon.
• What it does: ESA gives the government broad powers to protect endangered species, subspecies, or even “distinct” regional populations of species. Private groups also can sue to force the government to list a species as “threatened” or “endangered” or to take actions to protect it. In protecting species, the government can prohibit development and use of private property designated as “critical habitat.” ESA is “called by many the single most powerful law ever passed,” writes conservative environmental expert R.J. Smith. “In theory it takes precedence over all other laws—perhaps even the takings clause of the Constitution.”
• Cost: ESA enforcement received $125.7 million in fiscal 2002 (fiscal 2003 numbers were unavailable). The administration has requested $128.7 million for fiscal 2004. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has estimated that in fiscal 1997 federal and state governments spent $301 million on “certain expenditures” related to endangered species. Neither USFWS nor seven environmental experts contacted by HE could estimate ESA’s cost to the economy. Jim Streeter of the National Wilderness Institute said estimating this was practically impossible.
• Constitutional provision: “It’s my understanding that the foundation is based on the commerce clause,” said Chris Tollefson of USFWS.

6. No Child Left Behind Act

• Score: 40
• Started when: 2002
• By whom: President George W. Bush proposed the No Child Left Behind Act. Rep. John Boehner (R.-Ohio) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass) were its chief sponsors.
• Why: This law was designed to improve public schools by increasing federal funding, and by creating new state testing requirements to hold public schools accountable for the achievement of their students, while allowing some school choice.
• What it does: The law vastly accelerated the federalization of education. First, it forced states to implement standardized tests that must be approved by the federal government. Secondly, it massively increased federal education spending. And, finally, it included no real school choice: Parents of students in public schools that fail tests for two consecutive years will be given the option of putting their children in other public or charter schools—but not in a private or religious school.
• Cost: The law included new authorization for $26.3 billion for programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That was an $8-billion increase from the previous year.
• Constitutional provision: The 1996 Republican National Platform said there is “no constitutional authority” for a federal Department of Education.

7. Amtrak

• Score: 38
• Started when: 1971
• By whom: President Richard Nixon signed the law creating Amtrak.
• Why: The National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was designed to be a temporary program to sustain the failing national passenger rail system. After two years, government subsidies were supposed to end as Amtrak became self-sufficient.
• What it does: Amtrak never did become a self-sustaining, for-profit corporation. It remains a drain on the federal treasury. According to the White House, Amtrak already has received more than $24 billion in tax dollars. Congress continues to subsidize the program despite the 1997 Amtrak Reform Bill that required the rail carrier to operate without federal subsidies by 2003.
• Cost: Amtrak received $1.05 billion in 2003, a $223.5-million increase over 2002. Amtrak has requested another $1.8-billion subsidy for fiscal year 2004.
• Constitutional provision: Warren Flatau, a spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration, said, “I’m not a legal scholar. One could ask the same thing about a multitude of other government functions.”

8. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

• Score: 37
• Started when: 1975
• By whom: President Gerald Ford proposed it. Senators Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.), Hubert Humphrey (D.-Minn.) and Walter Mondale (D.-Minn.) were cosponsors.
• Why: A response to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, CAFE was supposed to diminish U.S. dependence on foreign oil. President Ford said it would help achieve “energy independence for the U.S. by 1985.”
• What it does: CAFE forces automakers to make more fuel-efficient cars. It sets minimum standards for the average fuel efficiency of all the cars sold by an auto manufacturer each year. If the manufacturer does not meet the standard it is fined for over-consumption. CAFE costs lives. A 2001 National Academy of Sciences study found CAFE may cause 2,000 fatalities a year due to downsizing of cars. Lighter cars tend to be more fuel efficient, but less safe. Rather than repeal CAFE, Congress and the administration are exploring ways to make it tougher.
• How Much: The federal cost is only a small portion of the Transportation Department’s fiscal 2004 budget of $218 million for research and operations. But its greater cost is in lost lives.
• Constitutional provision: “Well, Congress did it...let me pass you along to someone else,” said a Transportation Department spokeswoman. It turned out no one else was available.

9. Title X Family Planning Funding

• Score: 35
• Started when: 1970
• By whom: President Richard Nixon signed Title X of the Public Health Service Act.
• Why: Title X was designed to subsidize the use and distribution of birth control drugs and devices and to provide pregnancy testing.
• What it does: Title X funds nearly 5,000 family planning clinics around the country, many of which are operated by Planned Parenthood. The Washington Times reported in 1997 that of the approximately 5 million women who visit Title X clinics each year, more than 1.2 million are adolescent girls. Because money is fungible, Title X in effect not only subsidizes the distribution of birth control to teenage girls but also the provision of abortions. In addition to running Title X family planning clinics, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading abortion provider.
• Cost: Title X funding was $275 million in fiscal 2003. The Bush Administration is requesting a cut to $265 million in fiscal 2004.
• Constitutional provision: Christina Pearson, spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (which administers Title X) did not respond to queries from Human Events.

10. Welfare for Non-Citizens

• Score: 31
• Started when: According to Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, four major welfare programs—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, Supplementary Security Income (SSI) and Food Stamps—provide handouts to non-citizens. TANF (formerly called Aid to Families with Dependent Children) descends from a predecessor started in 1935.
• By whom: President Roosevelt created TANF’s predecessor and Food Stamps. President Johnson created Medicaid. President Nixon created SSI.
• Why: To take care of people who don’t or won’t take care of themselves.
• What it does: In addition to encouraging Americans to be dependent on government, these programs encourage aliens to come here and sponge off taxpayers. The 1996 welfare reform was supposed to change that. According to Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, it made legal aliens ineligible for Food Stamps and SSI, and required them to live here for five years before becoming eligible for TANF. In 1997 and 1998, Congress loosened the restrictions on non-citizens getting SSI. The 2002 farm bill lifted the ban on Food Stamps for non-citizens, and replaced it with a five-year wait. Medicaid covers medical emergencies for non-citizens, and states may choose to give non-citizens full coverage if they have lived in the U.S. five years.
• Cost: Camarota says non-citizens received $14 billion from the four programs in 2001.
• Constitutional provision: HHS Spokeswoman Pam Carter said, “That’s way above my pay grade....Congress gives us the money and we do as it directs.”

Dishonorable Mention:

• Affirmative Action Executive Order 11246 -- 25 points
• National Endowment for the Arts -- 25 points
• Bureau of Indian Affairs -- 24 points
• Social Security -- 24 points
• Chimp Haven -- 23 points
• Public Broadcasting System -- 23 points
• Federal Funding for Liberal Seniors' Organizations -- 22 points
• Medicare -- 22 points
• Clean Water Act Wetlands Regulatory Program -- 21 points
• Ethanol -- 20 points
• FDA Authorized Distribution of RU-486 -- 20 points
• U.N. Dues -- 20 points
• War on Drugs -- 20 points
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration -- 19 points
• Prohibition of Health Insurance Choices -- 19 points
• Women's Educational Equity Program -- 19 points
• Superfund/Brownfields -- 18 points
• U.S. Global Change Research Program -- 18 points
• Commodity Credit Corporation -- 17 points
• Steel Tariffs -- 16 points
• U.S. Strategic Milk Reserve -- 16 points

Click here for a list of our 18 judges.

________________

© Human Events, 2003

Respond to this story.

Subscribe Now

Home

[vannrox]

So What Would Democrats Eliminate?
By David Freddoso

Rep. Dick Gephardt (D.-Mo.) has no shame -- which makes him the ideal Democratic presidential candidate.

On the trail, the former House minority leader is slashing President Bush for increasing government. Really. "President Bush said he was for limited government," Gephardt said in a February 19 speech announcing his presidential candidacy. "Yet he brought back the era of big and bloated government."

But in his speech Gephardt did not propose eliminating any government program, while he did propose several new ones. He also contradicted himself by attacking Bush for his "latest budget cuts."

HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso went to the House last week to see if any of Gephardt's Democratic colleagues had identified programs they think should be abolished. The results were a pretty thin gruel.

Except, of course, for the proposal of Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.). He said he would abolish the CIA.

If you could abolish any government program or agency, which one would you choose?

Rep. Robert Andrews (D.-N.J.):  Price supports for agriculture.  I think the idea of paying people not to grow food is really counterproductive.  Second one I’d abolish would be OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which has the idea of subsidizing exports.  I mean, if the market’s there for exports, people are going to do it.  Those would be my two.

If you could abolish any government program or agency, which one would you choose?

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D.-Md.): Well, I haven’t really thought too much about that.  If you come back tomorrow and ask, I’d probably have an answer for you.

Congresswoman Cheeks-Kilpatrick?  I’m David Freddoso from Human Events.

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick (D.-Mich.): Human Events?  What’s that?

We’re a national conservative weekly.

Cheeks-Kilpatrick:  Ah, a conservative weekly.

Right.  This week I’m asking a question of mostly Democrats—

Cheeks-Kilpatrick:  That’s right, you should always ask both sides.

Exactly.  What I’m asking is, if you could abolish any government program or agency, which one would you choose?

Cheeks-Kilpatrick:  You know, I haven’t thought about that one. . .

If there was one government program or agency that you could just eliminate, just like that, what would it be for you?

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Ariz.):  Oh, wow, that’s a great question.  (Pauses.)  It’s a good question, I hadn’t ever thought about it that way.  Well, being a freshman here, and having that perspective, I would probably. . .Give me a second.  There’s a couple, but you asked me for one.

Well, if you want to talk about a couple of them, that would be great.

Grijalva: (Long pause.)  I would think that possibly—I can’t come up with one off the top of my head.  I’m kind of conflicted with about three or four.

Oh, really?  Well, if you just want to shoot out a couple—

Grijalva:  Some of them need real reform.  I don’t know if elimination of those programs is necessary, but one that, given the present structure needs some real reform in terms of how they function would be the Bureau of Indian Affairs. . . . And I think that right now, some of the more antiquated kinds of functions that government has been used to performing here, having to do with how we uh—another agency I would look at is the whole trade agency, and what we’re doing with NAFTA, and the Central American free trade issue that’s coming up, and Singapore and Chile.  I think that needs more congressional oversight, and needs to be reformed. . .

But you wouldn’t get rid of any of the—

Grijalva: No.

OK.  You’d say you haven’t really thought about it, then, like you said.

Grijalva: Yeah.

If you could abolish any government program or agency—just get rid of it overnight—which one would you pick?

Rep. Denise Majette (D.-Ga.):  Oh.  Well, I don’t know that I would say there should be any that I would just get rid of.  I think there may be a lot of reorganization and re-vamping that needs to take place.

So there wouldn’t be any of them that you would say actually does something bad or counterproductive, you might just say there are some that might do what they do better, or something like that.

Majette: That would be something that I would have to think about a bit more, but just as an initial reaction, I can’t say there is any agency that should be totally done away with—

Rep. Adam Putnam (R.-Fla.): (exiting the elevator, quietly remarks) Oh, I can give you a list.

Majette: I think that there could be a little more tweaking and refining.

Thank you, Congresswoman.

If you could eliminate any one federal agency or program, just get rid of it, what would it be?

Rep. Jim McDermott (D.-Wash.): You’re asking me to talk while I’m running down the Hill here?  (He and the reporter descend the Capitol steps.  The Congressman pauses for several seconds.)  The CIA would be my choice.

Really? (Laughs.)

McDermott:  (Chuckling.)  Yeah.  Why not?

Sure.  Thank you.

McDermott:  Okay.

If there were one government agency or program that you could just get rid of—it would be gone—what would you pick?

Rep. Donald Payne (D.-N.J.):  Well, I really haven’t given much thought to it.  I’ve been trying to deal with how can we make the agencies we have more effective, but I haven’t really spent time figuring out which ones we could eliminate.  I think one thing we could certainly do better is the question of the excessive amount of money that we’re spending on some wasteful military exercises and weaponry.  It’s been noted in the past omnibus bill that the missile defense system no longer has to prove that it can go past stage two, and I think we could continue to develop something with the basic premise being unsound.  And so—

So you’d want to cut off funding for the missile defense program, then?

Payne: Well, I think that unless it’s going to work, there’s some question as to whether it will work.  It has failed up to now. . .It would be great if it works.  I mean, no one would be against having some ultimate protection.  However, if, after a hundred billion dollars is spent. . .it doesn’t add up, we should know that before we expend unnecessary money.

So Congressman, there isn’t any agency or program you’d look at and say, “Hey that’s actually doing harm.”  You’d say that in general, you’d look at all the programs and say, “They all seem to be doing something good, but maybe they’re not doing it right or they’re not doing enough of it.”

Payne: Right, I—

You don’t think there’s any program that actually—

Payne:  Well, I haven’t looked at it that carefully, but I think there could be some combining of programs, there’s always efficiencies, and we’re all in favor of that.  Just to say there’s a program that should be eliminated, I would have to look at all of the programs that are around then, to find out which is performing the least efficiently.  Our goal is to review, and I’m sure there may be programs that are obsolete. . . .

If there were one federal agency or program that you could just eliminate—it would just be gone—what would you choose?

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D.-Miss.): INS.

The INS?

Thompson:  Yeah.  Is that all right?

Oh, yeah, it’s a fine answer.  If you want to elaborate at all—

Thompson: It’s proven that it’s absolutely incompetent, and there’s no redeeming value in trying to save it in its present form.  And I think its duties can be passed on to other agencies.  We can get rid of it.  We should get rid of it.

________________

© Human Events, 2003

Respond to this story.

Subscribe Now

Home

[dinodino]

Yes, Willie will be outraged. Everybody knows that the taxpayers should be funding high-speed rocket trains to the Moon--at least, that's what HE'S been saying.

[Copernicus]

We citizens need to fear treaties as the greatest threat to our liberty and sovereignity

Excellent point. There was an attempt in the Fifties to pass either legislation or an amendment to do exactly that-eliminate or refuse any treaties contrary to the Constitution and National Sovereignty.

I may find it after a search. I know Neal Boortz has discussed this.

Best regards,

[RightOnline]

Re: your #25.......what an outstanding......if thoroughly chilling........post.

Just more proof that yer average Dem is as dumb as a box of rocks. Downright scary.

[brityank]

... under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; ...

You missed this, the most important clause in that section. 'Under the authority of' -- just where does the United States get it's authority? Laws and treaties -- if in opposition to constitutional or Amended constitutional principles are invalid, period. Alcohol prohibition was correctly enacted by amendment, and was later recanted again by amendment. FDR violated those constitutional principles when he bulled that 'treaty' into law.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
        -- Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)