On Feb 17, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > Good for them. The states need a showdown over the 10th Amendment. Time to > re-establish the constitution limits on federal power and put the statists in > their place. Time to make the country a good place for everyone and not just > the elitists in government and their corporate cronies.
Here, let me see if I can explain it to you in small words... First, THIS is the Constitution we're talking about <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution>, not this one <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Constitution>. Article 6: "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." The Tenth Amendment is one of those 'any thing in the Constitution' cases, and this proposed law is covered under ' Laws of any State to the Contrary' What this means, in simple words is that US law beats state laws. Article 3, section three of the ARIZONA state constitution: "3. Supreme law of the land Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." This law is unconstitutional on the face of it, in either State or Federal court. ALL that the 10th amendment says is that rights not reserved by the Constitution or the People are reserved by the States. It DOES NOT MEAN that the States get to decide what is or isn't a valid constitutional law before applying it in their state. Like it or not, Francis, the states are subordinate to the federal government. If you hadn't learned your history from Conservapaedia, Rush and Glenny, you would understand that this is THE EXACT ISSUE that LEAD to the current US Constitution. What this means, in laymans terms, is that the yutzes in the Arizona legislature are bone ignorant not only of the Constitutions, PLURAL, that they swore an oath to uphold, but th basis in which they're claiming to have authority. For a state to claim a 19th Amendment right under the constitution, they have to have the law in question declared unconstitutional. This is a very high hurdle to overcome because this: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" is an incredibly broad allocation of powers, deliberately so. It's also been held up as such ever since the beginning. 'General Welfare' is the key phrase here, and virtually *anything* can be construed to fit. Like it or not, Francis, you're a citizen of the United States *first*, then a resident of California. Feel free to not let the door hit you on the ass on the way out if you disagree. -- Bruce Johnson "Wherever you go, there you are" B. Banzai, PhD -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
