Comments (79)
sorted by:
Txn4evr 85 points ago +85 / -0

Democrats have no idea what the Constitution is all about. It is a document of limitations. It states what the Federal Government is not allowed to do.

OkieBowhunter 26 points ago +26 / -0

The fact that organizations like Antifa exist in America is all the evidence you need to know the Constitution is no longer being taught by parents and schools alike. It's one of the greatest documents ever written when it comes to protecting our inherent rights as humans.

People are generally really stupid when it comes to the important things... But they can talk all about some random chick that goes missing.

Blandeaux 19 points ago +19 / -0

Make civics class great again!

summerstormAK 2 points ago +2 / -0

When we finally run these Fascists out of control, every citizen should be required to take and pass a civics course.

Jackdagger 8 points ago +9 / -1

Objection. Obama is a constitutional scholar from Harvard who definitely also loves women and not giant 10 inch schlongs

inspoken 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yes he probably knows the constitution well, I agree. In that way he's even more evil than Biden who is just a bribe taking fool.

DigitSoldier 29 points ago +29 / -0

Typical uniparty talking point... it does until it’s not in their interest for it, in which case they will start screaming “state’s rights!”.

WuTangFlu2020 26 points ago +26 / -0

It’s literally how marijuana legal states work.

border_humper 8 points ago +8 / -0

No, the state laws on weed are outside their authority, but the Feds can’t or don’t try to enforce federal law. So it becomes a nullification issue, which is nominally what the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression) was fought over.

muhqtardtho 13 points ago +13 / -0

This is why dispensaries don't work with banks and use private security companies to move around all their cash.

BigBadBrutus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Is there any place I can find out more about this? What's a security company?

yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

Premium grade rent-a-cops

BigBadBrutus 2 points ago +2 / -0

So the security companies physically move the cash, but where does the cash end up? Has to be banks doesn't it? Or credit unions? I guess that's where I'm lost. Has to go somewhere, and has to end up with banks eventually somewhere down the line, no? And why skirt banks anyway? Some law against using banks even though states allow weed dispensaries?

SpoonySmalls 3 points ago +3 / -0

The banks won't touch money from plant touching businesses because it is illegal for them to bank money gained through the commission of a crime. Cannabis sales are still federally illegal, and feds regulate the banks.

Wtf_socialismreally 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do they require you to pay taxes on your income from it? 🙃

yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

They probably use some sort of holding company or they have their own vaults or something, lol.

BigBadBrutus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Interesting. Didn't think such a thing existed or was allowed to exist. (The whole, over $10,000 thing)

GoingCamaro [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Those Federal Laws are an infringement on the 10th

TheHoeAndJoe420 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yah it works on the state level but feds could enforce it. some bill was signed to make feds stop messing with legal marijuana businesses though so to clear things up

Rusty-Shackleford 19 points ago +19 / -0

Didn’t we have this argument before? Around 1860, I believe.

SFAM1A 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes, and while the jackboot of federal tyranny may yet once again trod on the good God-fearing people of this country, as was before we won't go down without a fight and we'll take as many of them with us as we can.

BQnita 17 points ago +17 / -0

Illegitimate prez...

TurdFergueson 14 points ago +14 / -0

The Supremacy Clause does state, that when a state law conflicts with a federal law, then... (keyword here legally speaking) GENERALLY federal law will supersede state law. But when a federal law conflicts with the constitution, it literally becomes null and void. All we as states are obligated to do, is stay within the frames of the constitution. As long as that is the case, federal law has not much ground to stand on trying to override state law. At least this is what I understood when I just read up on the matter.

marvinthehaggler 5 points ago +5 / -0

This is the way I understand it.

Supremacy Clause, unless unConstitutional, and then it's Marbury vs Madison time...


"Turd Ferguson. It's funny." "No. No it's not." "Yeah it is."

marvinthehaggler 1 point ago +1 / -0

FWIW, I think the Supremacy Clause is total bullshit.

The Federal Gummint's power should exist in providing for the common defense and ensuring Interstate Commerce not unfairly bound by bullshit State laws. And that's it.

But with fiat currency, highway funds, "free education", "free medical care" and things like the ERA, etc., the Federal Gummint is balls deep up our assholes.

Need a 9th and 10th Amendment Reinvigoration Plan.

Bullseyed 3 points ago +3 / -0

when a state law conflicts with a federal law, then... (keyword here legally speaking) GENERALLY federal law will supersede state law

That's because it assumes the federal law in question is... legal. Invalid federal laws don't supercede state laws.

GoingCamaro [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I also doubt the Founding Fathers put this small provision in to supersede the previously mentioned Amendments. It is a clause not an AMENDMENT to give the Fed free reign on the states in whatever they attempt to decree.

TurdFergueson 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well the way I see it, is that the supremacy clause was only meant to be used if a state was trying to enact something very unconstitutional. Nothing more. Feds can go suck it.

inutterable 2 points ago +2 / -0

The Supremacy Clause was also supposed to be limited by the 9th and 10th Amendments to severely cut down on what laws the Federal Government could pass.

The People and The States let that get way out of hand a long time ago.

PowderRoomPolitics 10 points ago +10 / -0

These Vaxxes must be messing with their empathy and understanding! Bill of Rights overrides Federal Law, States' rights do as well.

Mad_Maximo 9 points ago +9 / -0

You mean, Trump could have overridden the bans of NG during all the race riots last Summer?

Weird how you forget laws and facts when they longer suit your angle, Demmies.

tstr 7 points ago +7 / -0

10th Amendment.

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.

How stupid are these people.

PaNix 5 points ago +6 / -1

Well please educate me how the supremacy clause is supposed to work as i am genuinely curious. Not trying to be funny because id like this to be true.

MAGA_Patriot_1776 17 points ago +17 / -0


Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

Our Founding Father's greatest fear was an all powerful centralized government. Federalism is the doctrine they used to determine the roles that the federal and state governments would operate within. Basically, the only powers that the federal government has are those powers explicitly granted to the federal government in the constitution itself. All other powers are the province of the states.

Examples of federal powers include national defense, the ability to create trade deals with foreign countries, a universal banking system, and interstate commerce.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the federal government explicit power to force vaccinations on any citizens.

Edit: More detail


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 Tenth Amendment expresses the principle that undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution: the national government possesses only those powers delegated to it, and “leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”

The Founders were wary of centralized government and were protective of the sovereignty of their individual states.

As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison (1803), “the powers of the [national] legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.”

If you read the whole article you will see what a mess various supreme courts have made of the constitution over the years. This is most especially the case when liberal interpreters have made rulings. More conservative, constitutional, textualists have sided with the Founder's intent more often than not.

Personally, I think our Supreme Court is 100% cucked and it is perhaps our greatest danger to our future. We are seeing this in real time like never before.

deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
FuckYouAsWell 4 points ago +4 / -0

For reference

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.

IMO that's one vague ass run on sentence.

What I understand of that is this:

The constitution and the laws that are made in accordance with said constitution (and treaties) should be the supreme law of the land.

This is where it seems vague or even contradictory.

Judges should rule according to the constitution, federal law or state law, assuming they do not contradict.

Now I think it's a safe assumption that they are implying that fed law is supreme by the first half. That second half though I feel could possibly leave ambiguity in that it doesn't direct a judge as to which law would be higher in the case of contradiction. And to okay devil's advocate on that part, it doesn't mention enforcing or following federal laws. It quite clearly says:

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If you take the thereby to include the previous half, that would include federal law. But if you don't, and where I'll play devil's advocate here it directs judges to follow the Constitution and state laws assuming no contradiction.

Which will bring me back to the first part following the same train of thought. They talk about The United States. Are they talking about a singular federal entity, or are they talking about a group of states in which laws are made accordingly?

I picked it apart a bit too much even for my liking. I as the clause is, you get a general sense of what it's trying to accomplish, but trying to nail down specifics with a sentence like that I think would be difficult to prove one way or another short of digging the guys up and asking.

JonathanE 6 points ago +6 / -0

I'm no expert, but the impression I got from the clause was that as long as the law is in-line with the constitution then states are bound by federal law.

However, if there is a federal law that does not meet with the constitution, the federal law can take a walk.

nothingelsematters 4 points ago +5 / -1


M-I-vet 4 points ago +5 / -1

The 10th amendment joins the chat...

(look it up).

JonathanE 2 points ago +3 / -1

Aha! Apparently I am an expert ;)

Thanks for the point out. Not being from the US I only know some of the basics.

I-AM-ANON 4 points ago +4 / -0

It says the Constitution is the supreme force of government; not federal law.

tstr 2 points ago +2 / -0

"Which will bring me back to the first part following the same train of thought. They talk about The United States. Are they talking about a singular federal entity, or are they talking about a group of states in which laws are made accordingly?"

In a legal reference, it depends if they are referring to the united States or to The United States. The former being a collection of states and the latter being the Federal Entity. This is why capitalization matters.

CheekyBastard 1 point ago +1 / -0

And then you find out there are three different definitions for "United States".

GoingCamaro [S] 2 points ago +3 / -1

The what now?

EDIT: thanks to follow on comments and caffeine I get what was asked.

Supremacy clause does not apply and should never be twisted or perverted to excuse blatantly obvious overreach

Mpetey123 1 point ago +1 / -0

It means a state can't pass a law that trumps the Constitution. So a state can't pass a law saying federal income tax is illegal, for example. But the federal government only has the power defined by the Constitution, all other laws are left to the states. The states are basically the fourth branch of the government that no one talks about.

CQVFEFE 1 point ago +1 / -0

federal income tax is illegal

Aye, that it is

deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
polish_snausage 3 points ago +3 / -0

Funny I can't find and EO from him on this....

President Joe Biden’s executive order, announced Sept. 9, is set to require all workers at private businesses with 100 employees or more to be vaccinated against the CCP virus, which causes the disease COVID-19, or show a weekly negative test.

polish_snausage 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank I couldn't find that.

Near the bottom is this.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

So It's not enforceable and was never intended to be?

Is that what that means?

Plantmedicine 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lol great catch it feels like a huge disclaimer that is akin to the clown world we live. I just have the link didnt read the doc sorry bud, im self employed. Godspeed fren

polish_snausage 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hey, I appreciate the link. I couldn't find it. I shoulda had more coffee before I started searching. :)

kish-kumen 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's that pesky10th Amendment (ratified in 1791) :

“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.”

According to James Madison (a federalist) the Constitution maintains the sovereignty of states by enumerating very few express powers to the federal government, while “those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

MetalThatMatters 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bassackwards there Yoseph

RagnarD 2 points ago +2 / -0

"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."

RS34ME 2 points ago +2 / -0

WTF... How can OSHA hold jurisdiction here when this whole matter is unconstitutional to begin with. Am I missing something??

“I think that, yes, when OSHA promulgates [the ETS] it will preempt Abbot’s order to the extent that OSHA holds jurisdiction,” Professor of Law at the University of Texas at Austin Tom McGarity told The Epoch Times.

McGarity adds that while a number of Republican state attorneys general have vowed to challenge the temporary standard when it comes out, he thinks they will lose in court.

“My view is that it’s probably authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, because I think that there is a grave danger in workplaces that is posed by COVID, and that’s what OSHA needs to find is there a grave danger,’ said McGarity.

The OSHA law on ETS states: “Under certain limited conditions, OSHA is authorized to set emergency temporary standards that take effect immediately and are in effect until superseded by a permanent standard. OSHA must determine that workers are in grave danger due to exposure to toxic substances, or agents, determined to be toxic, or physically harmful, or to new hazards and that an emergency standard is needed to protect them.”

ProPatriaMori 2 points ago +2 / -0

The last time States bucked up to a usurping federal Govt, it ended in a 4 year civil war.

tstr 1 point ago +2 / -1

That happened because they elected Lincoln to be President of the Federal Corporation THE UNITED STATES and not of the Republic The united States of America. When this happened is was an usurpation and the southern states left Congress and the session was adjourned sine die (without day) meaning a day to reconvene was never set. At this point Lincoln seated southern representatives who agreed with him and illegally kept the Congress and the country together, then forced it with a mercenary Army against the south.

The war of Northern Aggression could not be more accurate.

deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
CQVFEFE 2 points ago +2 / -0

If federal law overrode state law, what would be the purpose of state law?

It's kinda convenient that judges who have consistently ruled that where federal and state law conflict, the fed law supersedes.....are all employees of the fedgov.

Privatejoker 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is what happens when a large portion of your population is ignorant and prone to gas lighting

Trump_Is_Cyrus_777 2 points ago +2 / -0

Be funny if the States convened a Convention Of States and decided to gut the Federal Government of it's power. After all, they only exists at the behest of the States in the first place.

Jacurutu99 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are being provided a free, ongoing education that Federal Law does NOT override State Law. People are going to help them in giving them a few teachable moments to pull from.

noodle16 1 point ago +1 / -0

How can OSHA make laws? They plan to do this with an OSHA ETS.

FreeSpeechAnon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Tell that to all the medical marijuana states lol...we haven't followed the 10th amendment in 100 years and here we are.. federal law DOES trump state law. And the court cases establishing that precedent are many...

GoingCamaro [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

They're still wrong. And last I checked, the pot states are still producing and selling

GodzillaTrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m not trying to trample on the states here hut uh Federal Law does in fact pre-empt state law via The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution which i thought we all agree we want to protect. We can debate if the Fed Gov has become to big for its britches all day but its pretty clear that Federal Law generally pre-empts state law.

y000danon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Biden has the Internet Patriot Act ready.

Who is ready for new 9/11s?

Who is ready for no access to bank accounts?

Who is ready for food supply disruptions?

Who is ready to be doxed entirely?

Island_Photo 1 point ago +1 / -0

You should add some "these people are stupid flair" The Federal government cannot make laws more restrictive the Sate laws.

Etmb55 1 point ago +1 / -0

When the vaccine mandate issue gets to a real court (not a political one) it will fail on the same issue as the affordable care act was slated to fail until Justice Roberts invented his tax argument.

It was held by a majority, including Roberts, that the only basis for federal involvement in health care was the commerce clause but that clause only applied to regulate some type action; in that case the purchase of health insurance. It specifically held that the commerce clause could not be used to regulate (and penalize) inaction, in that case the failure to buy insurance. That is where Roberts invented his tax to substitute for the inability to regulate noncompliance under commerce.

In the case of vaccine mandates, existing Supreme Court precedent would allow the action of taking a vaccine to be regulated under the commerce clause but it would not allow the federal government to regulate or punish a decision to not take that action. Very simple concept. When a person takes some action it can be considered commerce but when they decide to not participate, their non participation is not commerce.

Texas has some very good lawyers and they were at the forefront of the battle against the affordable care act and I am confident they thought this out before the State issued the mandate prohibition. Depending on the judge assigned, they could lose at the district court level but when it gets to the 5th Circuit it should be a slam dunk. I doubt the Supreme Court would even consider it. The problem remains the damage that will be done if a hack political judge at the district court level decides to delay things. The current rogue administration is not even making a pretense at following law.

SpaceManBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is that not literally the point of federal laws? That they take precedence assuming they're not unconstitutional to begin with? Obviously, if you have nutjobs in charge like we do now with loads of governmental overreach then the states can absolutely tell the federal government to pound sand, but ideally, you'd have legit leaders in charge and the states would all follow the federal laws with no contention since good leaders wouldn't be passing bullshit laws in the first place. And all the states agreed to join the union; to be part of the UNITED States of America. Thus they follow the laws of the federal government. The federal government that they themselves elected (assuming that there's no cheating and the system is working).

So the suggestion is not only not tantamount to treason and not an impeachable offense, but it's actually correct. There's plenty of reasons to get rid of the Resident, but I don't really see this as one of them. At least that's my understanding of all this, I could be wrong of course.

GoingCamaro [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

The point of Federal Law is to have common sense regulations like currency and interstate commerce.

Your Federal RIGHTS supersede State Laws NOT the authority of the Fed. The Fed is only supposed to have authority when settling State disputes. At some point we just accepted them as a ruling authority instead of a maintenance entity which is all they are supposed to be.

babskek 1 point ago +1 / -0

individual--> local town ---> county ---> state ---> nation




AmberWins 1 point ago +1 / -0

Clearly not smarter than a 5th grader.

yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

can't help notice you never put your EO into place Joe...