Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.

But heres something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:

the Constitutions supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it

A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.

There are two main points to make here:

1. The supremacy clause does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even ordinarily as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by We the People. in the Constitution.

2. We know that this is the case because Monicas version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the Virginia Plan. A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim.

So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by We the People. And that happens far more often than not.

Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so theyre easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• constitution
• 10th-amendment
• supremacy-clause
• health-care
• state-sovereignty
• nullification

[KamikazeKoscki]

Rule 41, every case must be heard on the merits

[battlefieldpkwy]

On the other hand, the fed government used the printing press as the carrot and stick. Thus circumvent state law.

[wtong89]

Supreme Court is the law of the land, whatever they say is final. There is nothing anyone can do about it because the Constitution gives them that power. So doesnt matter what NY times or some scholar says, all you have to know is Supreme Court is law of the land.

[davidcole100]

[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

thomas jefferson answered it here period, the constitution rules not fed gov

[msadoy]

It is true that veto power is not given to the federal government; HOWEVER, in cases where laws CONFLICT, federal laws have priority.

The federal government cannot veto state rulings at whim, but where the federal government DOES make a ruling, it's ruling is considered supreme.

[msadoy]

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

[EpicDude86]

Ok ok...so what is the point of Amendments if they do not trump what's in the Constitution. How can people not understand that?

[dlhiles]

States need to re-assert state sovereignty, the Federal Gov't needs to return to what it is bound by in the Constitution - then if citizens don't like th laws in one state they can move to one more amenable to them. This is how it was designed.

[iannetta11]

The Cure is to Ignore!

[ElHombreConDosOjos]

Lincoln's War (undeclared & "undeclarable") settled the issue: the federal govt. is a CENTRAL govt. The States ARE NOT commonwealths. The Union is MANDATORY. Federalism is dead.

[Snowflake70]

What is Called For NOW.... is action. ACTION is needed. People need to follow the direction of Howard Beale. Get Mad as Hell and Don't take it (in the ass) ANYMORE !