 |
|
RE: I don't see the term "subservient state" in there.
Posted on: February 21, 2019 at 10:27:51 CT
90Tiger STL
Posts:
146522
Member For:
22.18 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Thus, the Supremacy Clause does not grant power to any federal actor, such as Congress. It deals with resolving a conflict between the federal and state governments once federal power has been validly exercised.
i.e., it says nothing about "subservience" nor does it magically eliminate all the state powers, laws and independence.
it's a clause which applies if and only if there is a direct conflict between a state and (constitutional) federal law.
your notion of "states being subservient to the federal government" is a gross misinterpretation and belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the entirely of the idea of the republic and its limitations, powers.
Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).
In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”
Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).
James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
Read the original article at TomWoods.com. http://tomwoods.com/what-did-the-supremacy-clause-mean/
i.e., it says nothing about "subservience" nor does it magically eliminate all the state powers, laws and independence.
it's a clause which applies if and only if there is a direct conflict between a state and (constitutional) federal law.
your notion of "states being subservient to the federal government" is a gross misinterpretation and belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the entirely of the idea of the republic and its limitations, powers.
Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).
In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”
Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).
James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”
Read the original article at TomWoods.com. http://tomwoods.com/what-did-the-supremacy-clause-mean/
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
RE: I don't see the term "subservient state" in there. - 90Tiger MU - 2/21 10:27:51