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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Supremacy_Clause
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
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/10/essays/163/reserved-powers-of-the-states
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.
For reference
IMO that's one vague ass run on sentence.
What I understand of that is this:
This is where it seems vague or even contradictory.
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:
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.
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.
This.
Aha! Apparently I am an expert ;)
Thanks for the point out. Not being from the US I only know some of the basics.
"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.
And then you find out there are three different definitions for "United States".
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
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.
Aye, that it is