The Purpose Of The Bill Of Rights

[PLizzy]

You did not highlight this part: "...and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"

You keep torturing the text to mean things that doesn't mean, without backing it up with more than a simple declaration.

It is you that are taking the activist approach.

 

[Tennyson]

That is exactly what I said just one page ago, or you unable to represent peoples views fairly?

You're also skirting the issue, which is that federal law does indeed trump state law in the constitution, whether you like it or not.

It does not. The law must be made under an Article I power and be constitutional.

 

[Harshaw]

:lamo

If a state passes a law giving the federal government a new power, the federal government legally has that power, end of story.

No, it doesn't. A state by itself can't grant the federal government any new power. That's absurd.

 

[Tennyson]

You keep torturing the text to mean things that doesn't mean, without backing it up with more than a simple declaration.

It is you that are taking the activist approach.

Article VI means exactly what I said it means and so does the plain language and sod did the debates.

 

[PLizzy]

Yes, the Supremacy Clause refers to that enacted through the powers properly granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

And even if you think the 10th Amendment conflicts with the Supremacy Clause, the 10th Amendment wins, being an amendment and all.

So now you disagree that federal law that is upheld constitutionally by the SCOTUS, doesn't in fact trump state law? And you have the nerve to accuse other people of changing the meaning of the constitution?

 

[Master PO]

That is exactly what I said just one page ago, or you unable to represent peoples views fairly?

You're also skirting the issue, which is that federal law does indeed trump state law in the constitution, whether you like it or not.

again it means that if a state writes a law which would be a delegated federal power, then federal law trumps that state law.


IT does not mean, that the federal government can write any law it chooses to override a state law.

 

[PLizzy]

No, it doesn't. A state by itself can't grant the federal government any new power. That's absurd.

I mean to say if the Congress passes a new law, it trumps state laws that conflict with it.

 

[Harshaw]

So now you disagree that federal law that is upheld constitutionally by the SCOTUS, doesn't in fact trump state law? And you have the nerve to accuse other people of changing the meaning of the constitution?

I think you need to read what I wrote and respond to that, not to your imagination of what I wrote.

 

[Harshaw]

I mean to say if the Congress passes a new law, it trumps state laws that conflict with it.

That is not at all what you said. You said:

:lamo

If a state passes a law giving the federal government a new power, the federal government legally has that power, end of story.

Don't like it? Too bad. Make sure you elect Congressmen that will represent your states interest to prevent the bill from becoming law, so that the power remains a state power.

And that is absurd.

 

[PLizzy]

again it means that if a state writes a law which would be a delegated federal power, then federal law trumps that state law.


IT does not mean, that the federal government can write any law it chooses to override a state law.

Um, yes it can.

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

Its right there in front of your eyes, yet you continue to twist the document to mean something it clearly contradicts.

 

[PLizzy]

That is not at all what you said. You said:




And that is absurd.

What is wrong with you? I clarified what I meant to say, so stop hanging a misstatement (which I'm pretty sure you understand to be one) over my head.

 

[Tennyson]

Um, yes it can.


Its right there in front of your eyes, yet you continue to twist the document to mean something it clearly contradicts.

The document means that a law has to be constitutional.

You have the same view of the Virginia Plan that was summarily rejected:

The National Legislature ought to be impowered to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of the Union.​

 

[Master PO]

So now you disagree that federal law that is upheld constitutionally by the SCOTUS, doesn't in fact trump state law? And you have the nerve to accuse other people of changing the meaning of the constitution?

constitutional meaning has been changed by the USSC.

james madison makes it clear in federalist 45, that the federal government has no powers concerning the lives liberty and property of the people, he states those powers are reserved to the states.

the USSC court upheld what Madison stated in 1873, however the USSC reversed that interpretation in favor of FDR in 1942


federalist 45 - The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[Tennyson]

I mean to say if the Congress passes a new law, it trumps state laws that conflict with it.

It does not say that.

 

[Master PO]

Um, yes it can.


Its right there in front of your eyes, yet you continue to twist the document to mean something it clearly contradicts.

you screwed up!

if you think the federal government can write any law they desire

 

[Harshaw]

What is wrong with you? I clarified what I meant to say, so stop hanging a misstatement (which I'm pretty sure you understand to be one) over my head.

You "clarified" what you said by claiming you "meant" something else entirely. The two statements simply cannot be reconciled.

Which strikes me not as a "clarification," but as a complete backpedal and fabrication of what you "meant" to say. Breathtakingly Trump-like in that way.

 

[PLizzy]

you screwed up!

if you think the federal government can write any law they desire

They can write any law the desire, so long as it is upheld constitutionally. I've said that several times now.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Master PO]

They can write any law the desire, so long as it is upheld constitutionally. I've said that several times now.

You don't know what you're talking about.

thats a back handed way of saying things.

yes, nothing stops congress from passing any legislation they desire, however to pass legislation which is NOT a power delegated to the federal government is an abuse of power.

 

[PLizzy]

You "clarified" what you said by claiming you "meant" something else entirely. The two statements simply cannot be reconciled.

Which strikes me not as a "clarification," but as a complete backpedal and fabrication of what you "meant" to say. Breathtakingly Trump-like in that way.

Make what you want of it, you sound like you're hellbent on concluding it anyway.

Obviously no state can give the federally government new powers. It was a clear misstatement, but for some reason you want to be as uncharitable as possible when someone simply says they made a mistake, and hold it over their heads.

I'm beginning to see why so many people find you unpleasant and rude.

 

[Harshaw]

Make what you want of it, you sound like you're hellbent on concluding it anyway.

Obviously no state can give the federally government new powers. It was a clear misstatement, but for some reason you want to be as uncharitable as possible when someone simply says they made a mistake, and hold it over their heads.

I'm beginning to see why so many people find you unpleasant and rude.

Dude. The thing is, you didn't say you made a mistake. You said you "meant" something you clearly didn't. And I wouldn't have made a big deal about it IF you hadn't been so cocky in that post, telling other people they didn't know what they were talking about.

If you're going to lecture people from on high, as you were trying to do, get it right yourself. Or, you invite exactly the reaction you got.

 

[PLizzy]

Dude. The thing is, you didn't say you made a mistake. You said you "meant" something you clearly didn't. And I wouldn't have made a big deal about it IF you hadn't been so cocky in that post, telling other people they didn't know what they were talking about.

If you're going to lecture people from on high, as you were trying to do, get it right yourself. Or, you invite exactly the reaction you got.

Well, here's the thing, dude. The two posters I was engaging with didn't know what they were talking about.

They twisted the Supremacy Clause to mean something it clearly doesn't, so I was providing them with relevant passages of the Constitution that demonstrated that. The claim that a state law is supreme to a constitutionally upheld federal law IS very absurd, and its what the two posters I was interacting with (as well as you) actually believe.

 

[Master PO]

Well, here's the thing, dude. The two posters I was engaging with didn't know what they were talking about.

They twisted the Supremacy Clause to mean something it clearly doesn't, so I was providing them with relevant passages of the Constitution that demonstrated that. The claim that a state law is supreme to a constitutionally upheld federal law IS very absurd, and its what the two posters I was interacting with (as well as you) actually believe.

i believe thats you, because you don't know what it means

 

[Harshaw]

Well, here's the thing, dude. The two posters I was engaging with didn't know what they were talking about.

They twisted the Supremacy Clause to mean something it clearly doesn't, so I was providing them with relevant passages of the Constitution that demonstrated that. The claim that a state law is supreme to a constitutionally upheld federal law IS very absurd, and its what the two posters I was interacting with (as well as you) actually believe.

No, actually, they're doing better than you. They're arguing properly based on how the Constitution works; you're basing just about everything you've said on the assumption that a law is upheld by the Supreme Court. In other words, you're relying just about entirely on judicial fiat, and judicial activism, while they're arguing straight from the Constitution, but you're saying they're the ones who are somehow subscribing to judicial activism. If they were, they'd be appealing to the Supreme Court for justification, not you.

 

[Tennyson]

Well, here's the thing, dude. The two posters I was engaging with didn't know what they were talking about.

They twisted the Supremacy Clause to mean something it clearly doesn't, so I was providing them with relevant passages of the Constitution that demonstrated that. The claim that a state law is supreme to a constitutionally upheld federal law IS very absurd, and its what the two posters I was interacting with (as well as you) actually believe.

This is what you stated: "I mean to say if the Congress passes a new law, it trumps state laws that conflict with it."

This is not what you stated: "The claim that a state law is supreme to a constitutionally upheld federal law IS very absurd...."

You were exposed. Own it and move on.

 

[Master PO]

This is what you stated: "I mean to say if the Congress passes a new law, it trumps state laws that conflict with it."

This is not what you stated: "The claim that a state law is supreme to a constitutionally upheld federal law IS very absurd...."

You were exposed. Own it and move on.

:lamo