Restoring A Constitutional Federal Government, The TX Plan

[Debra K]

A balanced budget amendment I would support. The 'super-majority' I would say has to be 3/4 of Congress and signature of the president, rather than 78% of the Supreme Court.

The rest is much of what the Confederate States wanted before the civil war. The states with more power than the federal government.

Right now the Republican party who is in control of the Senate stated yesterday they 'won't even hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee put forth by this president'.

I voted for this president in 2012. It was for a 4 year term, not 3. The CONSTITUTION requires the president to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, then the Senate interviews and approves one. Both parties have abided by the Constitution on this for 240 years, even with all the bickering and ankle biting, each party sucks it up and does their Constituitonal duty.

Now the Republicans have stated in essence they are free to ignore the Constitution in favor of their political biases. What they are doing is single-handedly nullifying my vote for president in 2012. A clear violation of the Constituiton and really an act of treason. I have already sent a letter to Republican House and Senate members, as well as state officials stating I am nullifying any votes they received and I will not follow any law or order enacted by a Republican official in the entire country.

I nullify your votes.

You people see what your hatred of this one man has done? And now you want the rest of us to consider letting YOUR party tamper with the Constitution?

FORGET IT. YOU ARE NOT AMERICANS ANY MORE.

You aren't.

The States were always supposed to have more power than the feds.

No they weren't. The Supremacy clause applies to the federal government, not the individual states.

You seem to forget, the supremacy if the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states, it says so right in the clause itself.

Article 6, Clause 2

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.

Underline the part above that says "the supremacy if (sic) the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states." It says NO SUCH THING. Thus, you should identify which clause you are allegedly relying upon so the reader may correct your error.

I think you're misconstruing "the Laws of the United States". The United States is the federal government. Federal laws are set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please clarify.

So you don't understand that "in pursuance thereof", is a limiting factor. They are only supreme in the laws made pursuant to the Constitution itself, they forfeit supremacy when a law is not pursuant to the Constitution. Of course the supreme court has been complicit in allowing them to do otherwise.

Give me an example of a United States law that was NOT "made in pursuance thereof." I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.

 

[bodecea]

The proposed "amendments" are absurd and are aimed at undermining the supremacy of the national government INTENDED within the four corners of the US Constitution that got rid of the Articles of Confederation in the first place. It's nothing more than a proposal for the neoconservative faction to take over national control through oligarchic rule and transform existing individual rights into majority rights & rule with the majority being that of the ruling oligarchs.

For those who haven't read them, here are Abbott's nine POS "proposed amendments":

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (the only one worth consideration)

III. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

 

[IsaacNewton]

This democracy does not work for many conservatives any more, thus the misguided attempts by Republicans to capture state legislatures and then gerrymander themselves so they never lose elections and enact voter suppression laws.

And we've been hearing this growing demand for a 'Constitutional Convention' to change the Constitution because it also works against them.

Conservatives you are slowly being ratcheted out of being able to win national elections. Not because of any design, but simply because the demographics are changing and there are alot of people that you daily disparage that are getting to vote.

So either you have to change and start accepting people, or relegate yourselves to minority political status.

Your choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

Nope, only to Fed laws the govt is authorized to exercise. And that's maybe 1/4 of the powers they are currently trying to claim.

The Federal government is entitled to as much power as the Supreme Court allows.

And I guess the supreme court is allowed to grant itself any power it desires also. Every time they expand the power of the feds they also expand their authority.

Your guess is wrong.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court does not 'grant' itself powers; the Court's authority to determine what the Constitution means comes directly from Articles III and VI, in conjunction with the doctrine of judicial review that predates the Foundation Era, as practiced by Colonial courts for well over 100 years before the advent of the Republic.

The Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to review laws and measures and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution, including the Supreme Court.

Indeed, Article VI clearly recognizes the authority and role of the courts to engage in judicial review, to invalidate laws and measures in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence, where those rulings become the law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States.

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

That would be the Constitution, but no where is secession prohibited in that document, is it?

Secession? No...and if the South had stuck with just that, they might have succeeded. But they were stupid and fired first on a federal installation that had not fired on them.

Stupid...and treason. They deserved more than what Sherman did to Georgia.

The US was told to remove their soldiers from a sovereign nation and they did the opposite, that was an act of war.

Are you really that fucking stupid to believe that garbage? The tail (State) does not wag the dog (Federal), Tex. The several States of the United States are sovereign entities under the umbrella of US sovereignty and subordinate to the United States of America. Read and UNDERSTAND Article VI, Cls 2!

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Our founding fathers committed high treason against King George. If our founding fathers had not won the revolutionary war, they would be labeled traitors and not patriots. Same goes for the secessionists .... if they had won the civil war, they would probably be considered "patriots" to the citizens of the Confederate States of America. But they didn't win. Modern day deniers, like you, can't pretend the civil war never happened. Whatever arguments you may have about a state's right to secede from the union are moot. The traitors to the union lost the war.

Great deflection, care to answer my question?

 

[OKTexas]

The States were always supposed to have more power than the feds.

No they weren't. The Supremacy clause applies to the federal government, not the individual states.

You seem to forget, the supremacy if the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states, it says so right in the clause itself.

Article 6, Clause 2

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.

Underline the part above that says "the supremacy if (sic) the feds is limited to the powers granted by the states." It says NO SUCH THING. Thus, you should identify which clause you are allegedly relying upon so the reader may correct your error.

I think you're misconstruing "the Laws of the United States". The United States is the federal government. Federal laws are set forth in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please clarify.

So you don't understand that "in pursuance thereof", is a limiting factor. They are only supreme in the laws made pursuant to the Constitution itself, they forfeit supremacy when a law is not pursuant to the Constitution. Of course the supreme court has been complicit in allowing them to do otherwise.

Give me an example of a United States law that was NOT "made in pursuance thereof." I'm trying to get you to clarify your position.

How about a law to regulate commodities that were never bought or sold and never crossed a State line, in fact they never left the property where they were grown.

Show me in the commerce clause where that could be considered Constitutional.

 

[Debra K]

The proposed "amendments" are absurd and are aimed at undermining the supremacy of the national government INTENDED within the four corners of the US Constitution that got rid of the Articles of Confederation in the first place. It's nothing more than a proposal for the neoconservative faction to take over national control through oligarchic rule and transform existing individual rights into majority rights & rule with the majority being that of the ruling oligarchs.

For those who haven't read them, here are Abbott's nine POS "proposed amendments":

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (the only one worth consideration)

III. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

If we accept that premise as true, then what happened? Wasn't there a subsequent civil war? How much blood was spilled? At great human cost, didn't the civil war give rise to the post-civil war amendments? Those amendments provide the federal government with authority to "manage" states. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents States from depriving persons of their lives, liberty, or property without due process of law and depriving persons of equal protection under the law.

The civil war occurred because a single man decided that the primary reason for our founding, that free men should be able to govern themselves, was no longer a valid concept. And through the force of arms, imposed his will, while ignoring the bedrock principle.

You must be one of those who was taught that the War was started by the North. "The Lost Cause" propaganda machine was well entrenched by the 1880s.

Guess you haven't figured out that sending troops to a neighboring country is an act of war.

The southern states were not a "neighboring country". The people of the southern states were engaged in insurrection. They fired upon a union military installation (Fort Sumter). The federal government has power under the Constitution to suppress insurrections.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

Another deflection, care to answer my question?

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

If we accept that premise as true, then what happened? Wasn't there a subsequent civil war? How much blood was spilled? At great human cost, didn't the civil war give rise to the post-civil war amendments? Those amendments provide the federal government with authority to "manage" states. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents States from depriving persons of their lives, liberty, or property without due process of law and depriving persons of equal protection under the law.

The civil war occurred because a single man decided that the primary reason for our founding, that free men should be able to govern themselves, was no longer a valid concept. And through the force of arms, imposed his will, while ignoring the bedrock principle.

You must be one of those who was taught that the War was started by the North. "The Lost Cause" propaganda machine was well entrenched by the 1880s.

Guess you haven't figured out that sending troops to a neighboring country is an act of war.

The southern states were not a "neighboring country". The people of the southern states were engaged in insurrection. They fired upon a union military installation (Fort Sumter). The federal government has power under the Constitution to suppress insurrections.

Actually they were, they had formed their own republic. Maybe you should learn the difference between an insurrection and succession and defending a sovereign territory.

 

[Debra K]

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Our founding fathers committed high treason against King George. If our founding fathers had not won the revolutionary war, they would be labeled traitors and not patriots. Same goes for the secessionists .... if they had won the civil war, they would probably be considered "patriots" to the citizens of the Confederate States of America. But they didn't win. Modern day deniers, like you, can't pretend the civil war never happened. Whatever arguments you may have about a state's right to secede from the union are moot. The traitors to the union lost the war.

Great deflection, care to answer my question?

I did answer your question. You claim the southern states merely "withdrew" from the country. However, an insurrection by any other name is still an insurrection. You're only deceiving yourself with your sophistry.

 

[OKTexas]

Amendment X

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States.

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

That would be the Constitution, but no where is secession prohibited in that document, is it?

Secession? No...and if the South had stuck with just that, they might have succeeded. But they were stupid and fired first on a federal installation that had not fired on them.

Stupid...and treason. They deserved more than what Sherman did to Georgia.

The US was told to remove their soldiers from a sovereign nation and they did the opposite, that was an act of war.

Are you really that fucking stupid to believe that garbage? The tail (State) does not wag the dog (Federal), Tex. The several States of the United States are sovereign entities under the umbrella of US sovereignty and subordinate to the United States of America. Read and UNDERSTAND Article VI, Cls 2!

Maybe you should get an adult to explain to you the limitations contained in the three little words "in pursuance thereof".

 

[OKTexas]

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Our founding fathers committed high treason against King George. If our founding fathers had not won the revolutionary war, they would be labeled traitors and not patriots. Same goes for the secessionists .... if they had won the civil war, they would probably be considered "patriots" to the citizens of the Confederate States of America. But they didn't win. Modern day deniers, like you, can't pretend the civil war never happened. Whatever arguments you may have about a state's right to secede from the union are moot. The traitors to the union lost the war.

Great deflection, care to answer my question?

I did answer your question. You claim the southern states merely "withdrew" from the country. However, an insurrection by any other name is still an insurrection. You're only deceiving yourself with your sophistry.

in·sur·rec·tion
[ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n]

NOUN

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government:

The south peacefully withdrew, it was Lincoln that committed an act of war against a peaceful nation. Try to rewrite it any way you want, it won't change the facts. And no, you didn't answer my question, were the countries that withdrew form the former soviet union traitors, or not?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

And there is nothing in the Constitution that permits a State from seceding from the Union either. You don't consider insurrection, open rebellion and the Southern States' declarations of secession acts of treason? Somehow, the founders did when they wrote the Declaration of Independence!

Amendment X

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.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the feds to command a State to remain in the union, therefore the 10th Amendment leaves that decision to the States. And the State used the democratic process to secede.

Are you freaking serious? Amendment X was the EXCUSE of the secessionists to rebel; States Rights was the bogus excuse to color the claim. Those States joining the US voluntarily ceded a portion of the sovereignty to join the union and accepted the Constitution as written.

Amendment X is about EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED powers of the Federal and the subordinate States. There can be found no authority in the Constitution where the federal has the power to expel a troublesome State, such as Tejas, so how the fuck does a subordinate power have that power to exercise it? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, Tex!

As the 10th states, the State are only subordinate in the areas where THEY granted power to the feds, no where did THEY give the feds the power to compel them to remain in the union.

And EXACTLY where can that be ascertained in either the Constitution or in a SCOTUS decision? You're forgetting about the chicken and egg conundrum you've created with your silly argument! You've forgotten the timing of certain occurrences and SCOTUS decisions that put the lie to your horseshit, Tex!

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

Its a pretty awful proposal. As it lowers the threshold necessary for the States to strip people of rights to 2/3rds rather than its proper 3/4. And the first thing that Texas would do with such authority would be to start taking away rights of federal citizens.

Undoing a law removes people of their rights?

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that the States established the federal government to manage their union, not to manage them.

YOU seem to forget that the States established the federal government because the loose confederation of states wasn't working. It didn't work during the Civil War for the Treasonous South either.

Really, no one in the south committed treason, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a State from withdrawing from their union. And Article 5 exists to allow the States to rein in a runway federal government and make changes they see fit.

Too bad you weren't living then so you could use your powers of persuasion to convince everyone to allow succession and prevent the civil war. But, alas, a war was fought ... blood was shed ... and there were consequences for the traitors to the union ... and the post civil war amendments prohibit the states from oppressing all persons within their borders, even persons whom some people consider to be lesser beings with no enforceable civil rights.

Same question I asked the other dummy, how can you betray a country you have withdrawn from? Are you saying all the countries that withdrew from the former soviet union are traitors?

Oh...was that "withdraw from" finalized? Or did the fools jump the shark and fire on a federal installation? Why yes....they did. All attempts at legally leaving the U.S. now null and void. Traitors and treason. There should have been a lot of hangings after the dust settled. Jefferson Davis front and center.

That installation was nationalized upon succession, a nation is justified firing on troops trying to occupy their territory. Had those troops withdrawn instead of trying to reinforce everything would have been cool.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The following link takes you to a plan put forth by TX Governor Greg Abbott, to propose amendments to our Constitution, to bring the balance of powers back to the founders original intent.

It's a very lengthy document, 93 pages with footnotes, but it's worth the read. It explains in detail why the amendments are needed and thoroughly explains how far our republic has strayed form its founding. It's both educational and informative. The proposals would have to be implemented through a Article 5 convention, the establishment in both parties would reject them out of hand, they wouldn't want to give back the power they've accumulated over the years.

I don't fully agree with the plan entirely but it's a place to start the discussion.

Please don't comment until you at least read the full summary, it's only 2.5 pages.

Abbott-Constitutional-Proposals

The proposed "amendments" are absurd and are aimed at undermining the supremacy of the national government INTENDED within the four corners of the US Constitution that got rid of the Articles of Confederation in the first place. It's nothing more than a proposal for the neoconservative faction to take over national control through oligarchic rule and transform existing individual rights into majority rights & rule with the majority being that of the ruling oligarchs.

For those who haven't read them, here are Abbott's nine POS "proposed amendments":

I. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

II. Require Congress to balance its budget. (the only one worth consideration)

III. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

IV. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

V. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

VI. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

VII. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

VIII. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

IX. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

You might be right but their is no need to fear that such actions would undo popular laws because it requires 2/3 of the states legislatures. If 2/3 of the people think a law or court decision stinks then it should be removed by popular demand. And since the federal government knows this can happen they will more likely to pass laws that are in accordance with popular opinion. What would be the point of passing a law only to have it removed later on by the state governments. The whole idea seems rather democratic if you ask me.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It seems like nothing gets the attention of the left than any attempt to weaken government. Why are their people that like strong powerful government that can do what they want and kick in doors anytime they please in our country?

 

[OKTexas]

The Supremacy Clause applies to ALL federal law.

Nope, only to Fed laws the govt is authorized to exercise. And that's maybe 1/4 of the powers they are currently trying to claim.

The Federal government is entitled to as much power as the Supreme Court allows.

And I guess the supreme court is allowed to grant itself any power it desires also. Every time they expand the power of the feds they also expand their authority.

Your guess is wrong.

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The Supreme Court does not 'grant' itself powers; the Court's authority to determine what the Constitution means comes directly from Articles III and VI, in conjunction with the doctrine of judicial review that predates the Foundation Era, as practiced by Colonial courts for well over 100 years before the advent of the Republic.

The Founding Generation fully expected the courts to continue to review laws and measures and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution, including the Supreme Court.

Indeed, Article VI clearly recognizes the authority and role of the courts to engage in judicial review, to invalidate laws and measures in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence, where those rulings become the law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

Law are the result of legislation, not court opinion.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

"prohibited by it to the States"

What's the 'it' in that phrase?

That would be the Constitution, but no where is secession prohibited in that document, is it?

Secession? No...and if the South had stuck with just that, they might have succeeded. But they were stupid and fired first on a federal installation that had not fired on them.

Stupid...and treason. They deserved more than what Sherman did to Georgia.

The US was told to remove their soldiers from a sovereign nation and they did the opposite, that was an act of war.

Are you really that fucking stupid to believe that garbage? The tail (State) does not wag the dog (Federal), Tex. The several States of the United States are sovereign entities under the umbrella of US sovereignty and subordinate to the United States of America. Read and UNDERSTAND Article VI, Cls 2!

Maybe you should get an adult to explain to you the limitations contained in the three little words "in pursuance thereof".

Being cryptic simply to hide your ignorance is not going to help you. Those three words mean what they mean and NOTHING more, and that is laws passed pursuant to the Constitution. You very conveniently left out this passage; "...and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.