Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: One HELL of a Numb-Brained U.N. "whatever"

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    Source: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

    This treaty has been very carefully crafted to appear for all intents and purposes as a benign means of curbing illegal international gun trades.

    However, it's also the very carefully crafted first step towards a ban on individual gun ownership/possession!

    I would encourage all of you to read the fine print and ponder the situation, as it bodes not well for we honest, law-abiding citizens.

    At all.

    Write your Congressman. If you dare write the U.N., please do so as well.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    I've responded to 5 of these "treaty" threads...someone else take this...
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
    Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
    the treaty is null and void.
    Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

    While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
    other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


    Taken care of, Marlboro!

  4. #4
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    Thanks Dave.....
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
    Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
    the treaty is null and void.

    Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

    While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
    other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


    Taken care of, Marlboro!
    I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

    Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Hunterdave wrote:
    Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
    Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
    the treaty is null and void.

    Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

    While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
    other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


    Taken care of, Marlboro!
    I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

    Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
    Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
    a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

    As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

    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 not withstanding.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Hunterdave wrote:
    Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
    Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
    the treaty is null and void.

    Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

    While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
    other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


    Taken care of, Marlboro!
    I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

    Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
    Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
    a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

    As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

    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 not withstanding.
    I believe that the underlined clause is saying that State Laws and State Constitutions do not override The Constitution, laws made according to the powers granted in The Constitution, and Treaties.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Hunterdave wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Hunterdave wrote:
    Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
    Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
    the treaty is null and void.

    Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

    While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
    other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


    Taken care of, Marlboro!
    I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

    Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
    Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
    a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

    As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

    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 not withstanding.
    I believe that the underlined clause is saying that State Laws and State Constitutions do not override The Constitution, laws made according to the powers granted in The Constitution, and Treaties.
    Eyes, sorry for the confusion. The underlined part was there when I copied it. I should have removed it. I underlined the part I believe to be relevant .

    Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Holland "acts of congress are the supreme law
    of the land only when in pursuance of the Constitution.

    Any treaty not pursuant to the Constitution would be null and void, if ruled by
    SCOTUS to be unconstitutional.But, that could be the fly in the ointment.

    Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Where am I, WA, , USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    MarlboroLts5150 wrote:
    I've responded to 5 of these "treaty" threads...someone else take this...
    The UN wouldn't care much for my input. They can have my guns from the business end first. Then I upgrade.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Post imported post

    Here is some quick reading on the subject.

    http://www.iansa.org/un/index.htm
    http://www.controlarms.org/en
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Hunterdave wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Hunterdave wrote:
    Firstly, treaties must be ratified by the Senate ,then signed by POTUS.
    Secondly, if a treaty is contrary to US Constitution,US law or state law,
    the treaty is null and void.

    Thirdly, this treaty does not even come up for proposal in the UN until 2012.

    While it bares watching , it is not an immediate concern, as there are many
    other fires to put out that are of immediate importance.


    Taken care of, Marlboro!
    I was under the impression that the President often signs a treaty and then passes it to the Senate for Advice and Consent. I seem to recall that there are treaties out there that presidents have signed, but are not in force due to not having been even voted on in the Senate or not having garnered 2/3 of the votes.

    Can you provide a citation for the bolded part?
    Eyes, everything I have read on the subject says that after consent by the Senate
    a treaty goes back to POTUS for ratification.

    As for the bolded part; US Constitution Art VI says:

    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 not withstanding.
    I believe that the underlined clause is saying that State Laws and State Constitutions do not override The Constitution, laws made according to the powers granted in The Constitution, and Treaties.
    Eyes, sorry for the confusion. The underlined part was there when I copied it. I should have removed it. I underlined the part I believe to be relevant .

    Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Holland "acts of congress are the supreme law
    of the land only when in pursuance of the Constitution.

    Any treaty not pursuant to the Constitution would be null and void, if ruled by
    SCOTUS to be unconstitutional.But, that could be the fly in the ointment.

    Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
    The treaties clause lacks the "pursuance" language. A court may well determine sometime in the future that what you are saying is true. However, absent some other citation that treaties have to be constitutional, we have no guarantee that a future court will rule that way.

    Thomas Jefferson sums up the problem nicely. He doesn't say that treaties can't overrule The Constitution. He laments the consequence of all-powerful treaties that can.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Treaties do not override the Constitution
    In the same discussion Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the
    supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in
    any other manner or situation be supreme.
    Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking
    to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”


    In anticipation that our president may sign one or more treaties that conflict with the
    U.S. Constitution’s limited grant of power, several voices of alarm are contending that a treaty
    can override, or in effect amend, our Constitution. Although that view has gained some currency,
    it is a myth that contradicts the intent of those who framed the Constitution. And it violates any
    reasonable interpretation of that document.
    Origin of the Myth
    The frightful idea that U.S. treaties with foreign nations supercede the Constitution has been
    regularly promoted since the Eisenhower era.1 It was given a big boost in 1952 when Secretary
    of State John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),
    made the following statement:2
    … congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas
    treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away
    from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and
    give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut
    across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.3
    It would be hard to find a more preposterous assertion. Sadly, however, many citizens have been
    led to believe that treaties do override the Constitution. Could anyone really think our founding
    fathers spent four months in convention, limiting the size, power and scope of government, and
    then provided for their work to be destroyed by one lousy treaty?
    But one might object, what about Article VI? Article VI establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws
    and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. It is called the Supremacy Clause,
    because it places federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to the Constitution above state
    constitutions, laws. and treaties.
    Some Important History
    This was needed because, contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation,
    certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers. During the
    convention, Madison said: “Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach
    on federal authority; to violate national Treaties, to infringe the rights and interests of each
    other.”4
    State-made pacts often conflicted with peace and trade treaties wanted by the Confederation
    Congress for the benefit of all thirteen states, making it hard for Congress to consummate better
    agreements with other nations. This also led to fierce contention between the states in their effort
    to monopolize the import of goods from Europe and the Indian tribes. But more serious dangers
    arose in matters of security, for should one state be at war with a foreign power while a sister
    state honors its peace agreement with the same enemy, the security of the entire Confederation
    would be threatened.5
    In an effort to head off such dangers, the Confederation Congress frequently attempted to nullify
    state-made treaties in the state courts (there were no federal courts). But as might be expected,
    the state judges ruled inevitably in favor of their own states, pursuant to the state laws and
    constitutions.
    The 1787 Convention corrected that problem by making certain only federal treaties would be
    recognized as valid. In this light, it is not hard to understand why paragraph two of Article VI is
    worded as follows:
    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.
    Upon ratification of the Constitution, the state treaties were nullified. Thereafter, only federal
    treaties were recognized as supreme, regardless of any remaining state provisions to the contrary.
    Moreover, under the new Constitution the founders established a Supreme Court, granting it
    original jurisdiction over treaty controversies, and thereby removing from state judges
    jurisdiction over treaty cases. In addition to quelling strife among the states, Article VI
    accomplished a major objective of the Convention, mainly that of placing the United States in a
    position to speak to the world with one voice.
    United States treaties are created when proposed by the President, with the advice and consent of
    the Senate. The power of the President and the Senate, in their treaty-making capacity, was never
    intended to be a power greater than the Constitution.
    Citizens who met in the state ratifying conventions (1787 to 1790) to examine with great care the
    provisions of the proposed Constitution had a correct understanding of the Supremacy Clause.
    During the ratifying debates, James Madison answered questions regarding the new national
    charter and commented on the extent of the treaty-making power under Article VI:
    “I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the
    empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative
    authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of
    its delegation.”6
    In the same discussion Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the
    supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in
    any other manner or situation be supreme.
    Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treatymaking
    to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
    But we do have a Constitution. Its life and viability depend entirely on the small number of
    citizens who 1) understand the document, and 2) who equally understand the forces at work to
    destroy it. At this point enough time has passed, and enough false teachings have been
    promulgated, to cause modern Americans to fall for the treaty power ploy. It is not surprising
    that John Foster Dulles, a ranking member of the CFR, should in 1952 circulate the treaty-power
    heresy that yet prevails.
    It is time for serious reflection on the words of Edmond Burke, “The people never give up their
    liberties but under some delusion.” Those who seek to preserve the sovereignty of the United
    States must work energetically to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties
    have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution.
    1 In decades immediately prior to the Dulles speech, Supreme Court decisions had already begun to
    enunciate the idea (see, for example, Missouri v. Holland in 1920 and United States v. Pink in 1942).
    2 Dulles actually made this statement during a speech in Louisville on April 2, 1952, shortly before
    Eisenhower appointed him Secretary of State.
    3 Quoted by Frank E. Holman, Story of the Bricker Amendment, (New York Committee for Constitutional
    Government, Inc., 1954), pp. 14, 15.
    4 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand, Vol. I, p. 164.
    5 Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of Union, America, Vol. 3, p. 47.
    6 Debates on the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., second edition, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott
    Company, 1907, Vol. III, p. 514.
    Don Fotheringham is considered one of the leading authorities on U.S. Constitution history and is an in demand guest lecturer on the subject.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    And more.From my research I have found many SCOTUS opinions that
    establish the supremacy of law to be:
    1. The US Constitution
    2. Federal laws and treaties
    3. State constitutions
    4. State laws and regulations

    Nothing overrides the Constitution!

    In the Reid v. Covert case, it was an executive agreement (not a
    treaty) between the United States and Great Britain that was in
    question. However, in Part II, we find:
    “MR. JUSTICE BLACK announced the judgment of the Court and
    delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
    DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join.”

    Significant excerpts include:
    “At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement
    was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which
    permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive
    jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American
    servicemen or their dependents.”

    “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who
    created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for
    the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history
    and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States
    to exercise power under an international agreement without
    observing constitutional prohibitions. ... In effect, such construction
    would permit amendment of that document in a manner not
    sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were
    designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and
    they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the
    Senate combined.”

    “There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court
    has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
    Constitution over a treaty. ... For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133
    U.S. 258, 267, it declared: The treaty power, as expressed in the
    Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which
    are found in that instrument against the action of the government or
    of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the
    government itself and of that of the States. It would not be
    contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution
    forbids, or a change in the character of the [p*18] government, or in
    that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory
    of the latter, without its consent.”

    “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
    Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity
    with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is
    inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
    the treaty null. ... It would be completely anomalous to say that a
    treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an
    agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that
    instrument.”

  14. #14
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    DEBUNKED!!!

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5843







    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the UN Arms Trade Treaty



    Tuesday, May 25, 2010




    [align=left]
    Contrary to a widely circulated e-mail, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not signed anyUN small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Dave,

    Thanks, it's nice to know that we already have a Supreme Court ruling saying that a treaty cannot change The Constitution. Many argue that a treaty can and, absent this ruling, I would worry what the courts would rule.

    I am still curious about the rank ordering that you presented. If there is a court opinion validating that rank ordering, I would be concerned. The Constitution represents the granting of limited and enumerated powers to the federal government by the States. In any area that the federal government does not have the power to legislate, the States (and the People) reign supreme.

    In areas where the feds have the power, the rank ordering is not necessary, as the States voluntarily gave the feds that power.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Eyes,

    The ranking order that I posted was from two Constitutional scholars and is
    gleaned from a plethora of SCOTUS opinions, that when taken together ,has
    established this order. The Fed law rank is only meant to apply to powers
    enumerated and delegated to them by the Constitution and only really used
    by SCOTUS to determine opinion of constitutionality when one in the list is pitted against the other.

    But, we all know how that enumerated powers thingy has worked out.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    Eyes,

    The ranking order that I posted was from two Constitutional scholars and is
    gleaned from a plethora of SCOTUS opinions, that when taken together ,has
    established this order. The Fed law rank is only meant to apply to powers
    enumerated and delegated to them by the Constitution and only really used
    by SCOTUS to determine opinion of constitutionality when one in the list is pitted against the other.

    But, we all know how that enumerated powers thingy has worked out.
    As silly as doing so might sound, I'd argue with those scholars. The danger in such a ranking is that it implies that the federal government is hierarchically above the States, which is the misconception that led to a lot of usurpation by the feds.

    The States are sovereign and have voluntarily, through The Constitution, ceded some of their power to the central government. In matters where they have ceded that power, the feds are allowed to make law, but only because the States have permitted them to do so. In matters where the States have not ceded the power to the feds, State law should, of course, trump any federal law--which should never have been passed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Eyes,

    I believe that Art VI already establishes this order when kept in context of
    enumerated powers.

    I do ,however, agree about the usurpation of power by the Fed, most of which
    occurred during the Civil War period and FDR and "his" commerce clause.
    It is why the North and FDR were both wrong, but, that's a different story,
    for a different time.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    Eyes,

    I believe that Art VI already establishes this order when kept in context of
    enumerated powers.

    I do ,however, agree about the usurpation of power by the Fed, most of which
    occurred during the Civil War period and FDR and "his" commerce clause.
    It is why the North and FDR were both wrong, but, that's a different story,
    for a different time.
    I don't think a plain-reading of Article VI establishes an order at all. Laws passed in accordance with the enumerated powers are law. States are not bound by laws not in accordance with the enumerated powers.

    States passing laws regarding handguns made solely intrastate is a perfect example of this concept.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Art VI implies that the Constitution is supreme and all laws passed
    must be pursuant thereto.
    Fed laws and treaties are supreme law of the land, despite state
    constitutions or laws to the contrary.

    That is an order,within the enumerated powers.
    The need for a list of ordered power is, I agree',
    unnecessary and redundant.

    The example you gave is outside of enumerated powers of the
    Fed. They haven't figured out how to co-op intrastate into the
    interstate commerce act yet, but they're trying!


  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    It's not a matter of order. It's a matter of classification. A law passed using an unenumerated power does not take precedence over a State law. The problem with ordering is it implies universal federal supremacy.

    We have a hard enough time reteaching the citizenry that the States formed the federal government and limited its powers. A hierarchy of laws works against that effort.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    I can agree with all of that.

    But, I still believe there is a natural order to our system.

    Enumerated powers
    1.states can pass laws within these areas as long as not contrary to Fed law or
    Constitution
    2. Feds can pass laws within these areas as long as not contrary to US Constitution
    3. US Constitution etched in stone (inverse order)

    un-enumerated powers
    1. muni
    2. county
    3.state laws
    4.state constitutions
    5. US Constitution ( inverse order)




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •