Bio not provided
And I hope you learn to read more carefully.
We're talking about the power of state government, not federal; i.e. state governments are not the final arbiters of their own or federal authority: the state's PEOPLE are, and state governments -- like the federal government-- only have that power which the People of the state DELEGATE to them. The People of the state are the ruling sovereigns, in whom all power vests; governments are simply their subordinate agents.
After all, the state's People are the ones who ratified the Constitution by popularly-elected state conventions, in order to overrule their respective state delegates who signed the Articles of Confederation, seceding from that union and ordaining the Constitution in order to form a "more perfect" one.
If this were not the case, then the federal government would be the supreme judge of its own authority-- just like it is now, and has been for the past 150 years since Lincoln.
Essentially, Lincoln re-wrote history in order to deny popular state sovereignty, and effectively transfer sovereign authority to the 540+ sitting individuals in federal government, while the People at large only retained the power to NAME them for their respective states or districts.
2 years, 1 month ago on Who’s Supreme? The Supremacy Clause Smackdown
You've got to realize that the states became a quasi-national union under Quasimodo-- aka Lincoln--, when he suppressed the national sovereignty of each individual state.
And thus, since the Constitution handles an INTERNATIONAL compact, then its nationalization simply TRANSFERS all power from the People of the individual states, to the 545 sitting officials in the federal government itself-- and whatever they can declare "constitutional" with a straight face.
This made the USA into a supreme imperial oligarchy; and merely being able to choose your dictator doesn't make it much less of a dictatorship.
Rather, power simply effectively flows to ELECTIONS, and to those political power-groups who INFLUENCE them. Essentially, it becomes a game of political pragmatism and causation, whereby a dollar will be spent in lobbying, wherever it brings MORE than a dollar in benefits-- simple as that!
After that, any lawyer can argue the Constitution any way he wants; that's why we saw the Lincoln-Coup, where Northern fatcat-indusrialists wanted southern tax-dollars and land, and so they hired a whore-lawyer named Lincoln to do whatever it took.... and so he did.
I wish it weren't that simple, but it is.
2 years, 2 months ago on Who’s Supreme? The Supremacy Clause Smackdown
@2AguyI guess I should have been more specific: i.e. who has the POWER to decide what's Constitutional?
The answer is: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Everything else is just OPINION.
Ever since Lincoln, the Federal government has run amuck-- just as Madison and Jefferson WARNED that it would do in "Resolutions," if the People of the individual states could not NULLIFY federal laws.
In The Kentucky Resolutions, for example, Jefferson writes that "the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
And since that idea was suppressed under the Lincoln Coup by mass-murder and censorship, then the Constitution is just a token instrument to which the government pays LIP-SERVICE, while doing exactly as it wants.
While others are free (technically) to voice their OPINIONS in dissent of the federal government, it IS the supreme dictatorship; and ignorance or denial of this fact ENSURES it.
The Constitution wouldn't mean much, if every state government was free to ignore federal laws at will by saying that "they're not written in pursuance of the Constitution." In fact, that was the primary purpose of the Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation: i.e. other countries were unwilling to make Treaties with the United States, since any state could simply ignore them; and the same went for the individual states as well.
For this reason, the Supremacy Clause expressly mentions treaties as binding every state.
As James Madison expressly wrote the following in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolution:
>>"It is indeed true that the term "states" is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different construction of the term "states," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.....However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
Thus, Madison expressly wrote that it was the sovereign PEOPLE of a state-- not a state's GOVERNMENT-- who had the power to Nullify federal laws.
This was in following of sovereignty being the HANDS of a state's people, as per the basic principle that governments derive their power by CONSENT of the people they govern-- and therefore it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government at will.
Here, Nullification is simply such an "alteration;" meanwhile secession would be abolishing it completely.
This was demonstrated in 1787-9, when each state seceded from the Confederation in order to form a new union by ratifying the Constitution. Unfortunately, popular history has been penned by the victors of Lincoln's war, and thus they hold that the current Union was a nation formed in 1776, not a federal republic of sovereign nations formed in 1788.
In any event, the fact remains that Nullification is privy to the People of the state; i.e. they must convene among themselves apart from their state government, to Nullify a federal law by popular vote in state convention.
In contrast, the state government does NOT have this power, since it was not delegated to it by the People of the state; as the Constitution shows, the state government has only those powers which are not delegated to the federal government thereby, or reserved to the People of the states.
2 years, 7 months ago on Who’s Supreme? The Supremacy Clause Smackdown
"The Congress has no authority to delegate (further) the authority delegated to them in Article I of the Constitution."
As always, the term "delelegate" is often confused with SURRENDER-- just as with the People of the states delegating powers to the federal government, is taken as a permanent surrender of those powers, as when the Jackson administration authorized the use of military force against the individual states, and the Lincoln Administration carried out such.
However in reality, "delegation" in the Constitution refers to authorizing a subordinate to carry out orderso-- not not giving away the power to an independent or superior body. For example, a manager may delegate authority to an employee, but it always subject to oversight by the manager or a superior.
Here, the federal government SURRENDERED power to an independent body over which is not directly subordinate to any branch of government-- and did so through normal legislative process, and not by Constitutional Amndment.
This not only breaches separation of powers, but breaches the Constitution altogether by usurpation of clearly extra-constitutional authority, exercising congressional power without direct congressional oversight.
However once the federal government usurped the power to coerce the states through military invasion, it suppressed their power of sovereign recourse; and as Madison and Jefferson warned, this made the federal government into the supreme and final judge ot its own powers-- since no other power could stand against it.
So essentially the die was cast under the Lincoln Administration; and the Federal Reserve was simply a matter of time and tide-- as with all other federal abuses, i.e. since the states have no recourse against them.
3 years, 3 months ago on The Federal Reserve vs the Constitution