Bio not provided
@ChrisSwenson The Supremacy Clause ONLY applies when the legislation can be tied back to Article I: Section 8. Not one single entity is granted the power to be the final arbiter of what is Constitutional or not. Everyone who takes an Oath on some level is responsible in holding that Oath. If the Feds show up to a county and wants to detain someone under the NDAA, should the Country Sheriff just stand back and let it happen until the Supreme Court rules on it? This makes no sense, and is not how the system is suppose to be. The states are sovereign and do have say on what the Constitution means since it was them who created it.
10 months ago on Oklahoma Senate Bill Aims to Nullify Obamacare – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@TaskForce16 @JohnLambert1 @mrducksmrnot Task,You have a lot of your facts wrong. Just about everyone of my statements can be backed by the Ratifying Conventions, particularly Virginia. James Madison (You may know of him, the one historians will refer as the "Father of the Constitution".) stated that if there was any debate on what the original intent of the Constitution, you need to look at the Ratifying Conventions because these conventions was how the Constitution was sold to the people.Response to your first paragraph:It was understood that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not to the states. What door is left open? This is how it the document was meant to be based on original intent.Response to your second paragraph:I do not want the states to "trample" over the rights of individual. I very much do support John Locke and his belief on Natural Rights. The Constitution doesn't grant us our rights, but ACKNOWLEDGES them. Our rights existed before the Constitution. Our rights ARE NOT ENUMERATED by the Constitution. The act of a state of using "nullification" isn't bypassing the Amendment Process. IT is already stating its own interpretation of what is Constitutional or not. One could argue that nullification is the means where the States can enforce the 10th Amendment.Response to your third paragraph:Not a true statement. The Constitution is only supreme when the law or action by the federal government is "in pursuance thereof" as listed in Article I: Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can only pass laws that are allowed by them in this section. Otherwise, it goes back to the States via the 10th Amendment.Also, you are also incorrect assuming that the Supremacy Clause impacts the Amendments. The purpose of the amendment process is to "amend" the body thus takes precedence over the body. The Supremacy Clause is part of the "Body" of the Constitution. This means that any Amendment passed takes precedence over what is in the body of the document. SO, this means that the 10th Amendment takes precedent over the Supremacy Clause where Congress can only pass legislation based on what is expressed in Article I: Section 8.Response to your fourth paragraph:I am glad we agree on the 14th Amendment. However, you concept of the Supremacy Clause and its impact is incorrect as I stated in the previous section.Response to your fifth paragraph:I would say your take here is actually correct. The mistake that many make with the modern interpretations of the 14th Amendment was it was really a response to the Civil War and the recent freedom of the slaves. Those provisions were to guarantee that the slaves would be treated as citizens. Not the incorporation of the Bill of the Rights unto the States.Response to your last paragraph:I have to admit. I was laughing at this one. Posting an interview with Professor Kevin Gutzman, a Constitutional Scholar, nominated for a Pulitzer Prize last year for his biography of James Madison which many critics claim it is one of the best ones of him. I would also recommend Gutzman's book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution."http://www.mikechurch.com/founders-television/kevin-gutzman-on-the-14th-amendment-and-due-process/
10 months ago on Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream
@onetenther @mrducksmrnot I will point out that no where in the Constitution does it grant any one entity the final authority of determining the Constitutionality of an issue.President Madison actually vetoed bills he actually liked because he felt the Constitution didn't grant the federal government the authority to do so. When was the last time you saw a President do that?Each party was expected to take their oath to the Constitutional seriously from the President to the local county sheriff. Today, politicians just pass legislation that fits their agenda and let the courts decide if it is Constitutional or not. This isn't supposed to work this way.This was never a power the Supreme Court was supposed to have and it is one that quite frankly usurped.
@TaskForce16 @mrducksmrnot TaskForce, There is one thing you are in error about. The Second Amendment doesn't apply to all levels of government. The Bill fo Rights as the whole only applies to the Federal Government not to the States. This was clearly understood to be the case at the time of the ratification.Now, many states did also have their own version of the "Bill of Rights" and many states do have a "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" clause in their state constitutions.You are falling into the "Incorporation Doctrine" belief trap.Both Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods really go into this with a lot of their writings.