• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Contradiction in the Constitution...

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The founders of the constitution so desperately hoped that the nation would always strive to protect individual liberties and the rights of the states. This is especially true when considering the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights. However, the whole "federal law trumps state law" basically negates the protection of state's rights because the Feds can simply pass a law and it will always supersede ANY state law. This is the greatest canundrum of our nation: Centralized or Decentralized?
 
It's a combination of both in balance. The Fed's job is to ensure the well being of the union as a whole, and individual States cannot accomplish that. That's why some laws are state driven while others exist nation wide. I do think the balance is becoming tipped though.
 

We were meant to be an economic free trade zone with a common defense pact.
We were supposed to have a pretty board set of individual rights.
Each state was supposed to be semi-autonomous.
Pretty similar to the EU.

Of course, that has been perverted to what we have now.
 
I don't see the supremacy clause as a contradiction, although unfortunately it has been abused at times causing great harm. I think it was necessary to include it to ensure that the federal government was not simply another established state government, in a sense, but problems arise because interpreters (judges) tend to cherry-pick what they want to when they shouldn't.

In the case of the Supremacy Clause, the phrase in the first part of the clause:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land....
seems to have been completely forgotten. It shouldn't be. It says federal laws: " which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]."

The problems arise when this important phrase is ignored, and it is assumed that any federal law trumps any state law. IMO, the proper interpretation, including this important phrase, is: any federal law, in pursuance of the federal government's proper constitutional authority only, shall trump state laws.
 
Last edited:

No. the Federal government's job is supposed to be to follow what is written into the Constitution, no more, no less. The balance was actually, and still is supposed to be, tipped heavily in favor of the states and/or the people themselves, with the federal govermnent restricted to very specific powers in which it necessarily held supreme authority--but these powers were originally relatively few.
 

exactly.... that's why we have the 10th amendment.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Section 8 details the delegated powers of Congress, who by the way has the only power in the US government to write and pass laws.


The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

If you don't see it in Section 8, it is a State right unless it is covered in Section 10... if it is covered in Section 10, but not in Section 8, it is a right reserved to the people.



The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Pretty simple.
 

The federal government holds supremacy *only if* the issue is in direct conflict with a state issue and *only if* the federal government has been granted authority/power in that area.

The federal government cannot grant itself more rights/permissions/strengths than is already in the Constitution - it has ___ powers and that's it. . . which is how things can be deemed 'unconstitutional'

The states have *more* powers (as in - amount of) than the federal government and a states powers are undefined - but must abide by the basics of the Constitution which each state ratified. Unlike the federal government which is very limited and very defined in what it can and cannot do.
 
A strong centralized government was one of the main reasons for adopting the constitution, given the failures of the articles of confederation.
 
A strong centralized government was one of the main reasons for adopting the constitution, given the failures of the articles of confederation.

a "stronger" centralized government----------------that is the accurate statement.

the constitution clearly intended a limited government with only the powers clearly delegated to it.
 
a "stronger" centralized government----------------that is the accurate statement.

the constitution clearly intended a limited government with only the powers clearly delegated to it.

Sure, but whatever those powers where seemed to be pretty unclear. Half the people who were at the convention could not even agree upon what the federal government was allowed to do, and when the constitution was ratified, there were at least 3 conflicting interpretations as to what the legislative power of the federal government was.
 

that may be true but I can state without any danger of contradiction that no one can find any support for much of what the government does today in the original intent of ANY of the founders
 
that may be true but I can state without any danger of contradiction that no one can find any support for much of what the government does today in the original intent of ANY of the founders

For the most part, you may be right. There were some noteable exceptions though, for example, Gouverneur Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. He tried to make congresses powers even more expansive than they are today. He added a semicolon before the general welfare clause to make legislating for the general welfare a seperate power. This would mean that the government could not only spend on the general welfare but also regulate. However, rodger sherman caught the semicolon and added the comma, to prevent this from happening.
 
A strong centralized government was one of the main reasons for adopting the constitution, given the failures of the articles of confederation.

Exactly!

We already had a country in which the states carried the strength - fed was weak - and obviously it was a horrible idea.
 

Only laws within the powers of the Federal govt are supreme over state law.
 
Last edited:

yes. and the people were supposed to be able to choose between them.
 
I don't think its a conundrum at all. You can have a strong centralized government and still have rights protected by the Bill of Rights etc. I personally am for a strong centralized government. One of the failings of the Articles of Confederation was that it was a weak centralized government. The founders strengthened the centralized government and made it into what we see today, which is clearly more successful than the weaker centralized government. I personally think that States' Right's is what led to the Civil War and division.
 

The Founders did not envision the federal govt we have today, they envisioned a federal govt with limited duties and sufficient authority to carry those duties out.
 
The Founders did not envision the federal govt we have today, they envisioned a federal govt with limited duties and sufficient authority to carry those duties out.

This is true - the anti-federalists feared a large, centralized military and other things would happen - which is why they opposed it - and look, those things have happened.
 
The 10th Amendment wasn't originally supposed to allow for a powerful national government the way it is today. Anybody that's taken a Constitutional Law class will know (should anyways) that in regards to the Commerce Clause (which gives the government a lot of its seemingly endless powers these past 100 years), it wasn't really applied with the 10th Amendment until the early 20th century.

Now there has certainly been plenty of good to come out of it, such as child labor laws and desegregation, but the USGOV certainly went on a power trip.
 
This is true - the anti-federalists feared a large, centralized military and other things would happen - which is why they opposed it - and look, those things have happened.

But don't blame the Constitution, it provides for no such powers.
 
But don't blame the Constitution, it provides for no such powers.

Yes, because that is what the anti-federalists thought...Why do you think they opposed the constitution? I'll answer for you, because many founders and eraly amercians thought it did provide such a power.
 
Last edited:
But don't blame the Constitution, it provides for no such powers.

The Constitution gives a lot of flex - like a Good-Morning. . .to do what's necessary and proper.
 
The Constitution gives a lot of flex - like a Good-Morning. . .to do what's necessary and proper.

Yeah right....necessary and proper to carry out the limited number of powers enumerated. You can't just do any damn thing you want.
 
That the federal govern,ent can do this in no way necessarily negates the protection of states' riggts because there are some - indeed many - things that the federal goverment has no power to do.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…