# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Article VI. Second Paragraph of the Constitution

## Allen72289

"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"

What are your opinions of what this means?

I'll put my 2 cents in later..

----------


## Bryan

Basically it is saying that the the US Constitution has no law that supersedes its authority- and that judges within the states must adhere to it. ... That's the nut shell version but no doubt volumes have been written about the Supremacy Clause. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

----------


## torchbearer

read my signature.

----------


## Allen72289

Totally agree but why is it  that individuals (law enforcement) can't seem to understand local laws don't make a damn if they are contradicting... it pisses me off.. i know stupid question.. they are ignorant of the law they are suppose to protect...


just really upset at the moment.. infringed... bye bye.. my guns..

----------


## Scofield

If the Supremacy Clause is real, why is it that the 9th Amendment doesn't apply to State's?  Meaning, you have no 9th amendment protection from State government...only Federal.

Hell, does the 9th amendment hold any water?  It doesn't guarantee anything, and no matter what you argue, the government says that right isn't protected.  I'd like to state that marijuana use is protected under the 9th, but no government will admit such.

----------


## demolama

The Supremecy clause: The language in the Constitution about it being "the supreme law of the land" only applies to the seventeen enumerated powers to the central government in Article I, Section 8. 

"The constitutional laws of the states are equally supreme with those of the federal government" John Taylor New Views of the Constitution of the United States  pg 79

How can the creation be greater than the creator on everything especially if the created's powers are limited and defined and the states are unlimited and undefined?

The whole clause came about because the states under the Articles refused to abide by treaties.  Remember the treaty of Paris stipulated that the Loyalist would regain their land after the war... yet many states still confiscated lands of loyalist long after the war.  The clause was a way to force states to enforce them by making treaties the "Law of the Land."  So when suits brought up in state courts were trying to regain their land state judges should uphold the treaties and ultimately the Constitution because the state judges were bound to it.




> This clause only grants "supremacy" to the central government on the seventeen specific functions of the central government that are delineated in Article I, Section 8, period, many of which have to do with waging war and foreign policy. This power has been grossly abused by implying that the central government is somehow "supreme" in anything and everything vis-à-vis the citizens of the states. This of course is a perfect recipe for tyranny.


 Thomas J. DiLorenzo

----------


## Scofield

However, it doesn't state "only the 17 enumerated powers are the supreme law of the land."  It states "This Constitution," meaning everything in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights).

It's not a matter of interpretation.  It's a matter of looking at the words and following what they say.  If it said "the 17 enumerated powers," I'd agree, but it doesn't.  It states that the Constitution in it's entirety is the "Supreme Law of the Land."

----------


## demolama

Except that when the Bill of Rights were adopted they were understood to be restricting on the Federal government only




> THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added


 Preamble to the Bill of Rights

I just had this whole discussion on this topic in the "the libertarian's basis for the 14th amendment"

----------


## Scofield

> Except that when the Bill of Rights were adopted they were understood to be restricting on the Federal government only
> 
>  Preamble to the Bill of Rights
> 
> I just had this whole discussion on this topic in the "the libertarian's basis for the 14th amendment"


"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"

Where do the words "federal government" come into play?

The States themselves mandated that the Constitution be the "Supreme Law of the Land" when they ratified the Constitution, and thus when they approved the Bill of Rights, they approved them [Bill of Rights] to be the "Supreme Law of the Land" as well.

----------


## demolama

> "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its *[federal]* powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"


why would the conventions of the states try to prevent misconstruction and abuse of their power?  That doesn't make sense.  The federal constitution limits federal power and the bill of rights was added to make sure they didn't trample on the people's rights...  this is why NC waited to join the union.

The states themselves already had their own constitutions and bill of rights ... since the state's bill of rights and the federal bill of rights covered pretty much the same things it makes for redundancy because the rights enumerated in both were well established English Common law rights dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215.




> The States themselves mandated that the Constitution be the "Supreme Law of the Land" when they ratified the Constitution, and thus when they approved the Bill of Rights, they approved them [Bill of Rights] to be the "Supreme Law of the Land" as well.


yes for the Federal government.


Madison's Bill of Rights proposal at Congress. http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html



> Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
> 
> The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
> 
> The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
> 
> No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
> ...


What is article 1 section 9? Why its the Limits on Congress. As you can see that was the intent to limit the Congress only.  This idea was rejected by the committee of style because they didn't want to besmirch the newly hallowed document (Constitution) with the signers. They wanted to keep the document as is with the signers named permanently attached for posterity.  The list of amendments we see today was a styling choice... nothing more.

The only Article 1 section 10 proposal which limited the states was



> Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
> 
> No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.


and it was rejected by Congress.


i really don't want to start a whole new debate about this

----------


## Scofield

> The only Article 1 section 10 proposal which limited the states was
> 
> and it was rejected by Congress


It can be said to have been rejected because that right was secured in the Bill of Rights.  Why repeat it?

----------


## demolama

> Madison also proposed three restrictions on the states: "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." (see Speech) It is interesting to speculate that Madison may have considered these three the most critical rights. These restrictions were not approved by Congress, and thus the Bill of Rights in its original intent was to restrict only the federal government. Eventually more extensive restrictions were imposed on the states by the 14th amendment and its interpretation by the Supreme Court (see Amendment XIV).


http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/ma...jmproposal.htm

----------


## demolama

> It can be said to have been rejected because that right was secured in the Bill of Rights.  Why repeat it?


because that interpretation is wrong based upon history

----------


## Scofield

You're right, I concede.

Having thought about it, I agree with your point.

----------


## Scofield

My only question, how do the people overcome obviously immoral and unjust laws?

If the individual Bill of Rights of the individual States don't protect the citizens of their respected State from unjust/immoral laws, what power do they have to change them?  If 51% of the people are mind-controlled zombies who hate freedom, they win.

----------


## demolama

The problem is we live in society where individual rights are encroached upon by all government entities.  This is the age old question


> If the individual Bill of Rights of the individual States don't protect the citizens of their respected State from unjust/immoral laws, what power do they have to change them? If 51% of the people are mind-controlled zombies who hate freedom, they win.


... and the reason why we are all here at RPF.

Organize in political communities at the state and local levels... education such as understanding federalism and why the best way to perserve liberty is at the lowest form of government(communities) is the only way I can think of we can over come.   We need not only political activists but educators.  Which always seems to be the last thing people think of (educators).  It is always easier to overturn unjust laws for 1 million than it would be to overturn for 350 million

----------


## Scofield

> The problem is we live in society where individual rights are encroached upon by all government entities.  This is the age old question... and the reason why we are all here at RPF.
> 
> Organize in political communities at the state and local levels... education such as understanding federalism and why the best way to perserve liberty is at the lowest form of government(communities) is the only way I can think of we can over come.   We need not only political activists but educators.  Which always seems to be the last thing people think of (educators).  It is always easier to overturn unjust laws for 1 million than it would be to overturn for 350 million


Ron Paul has been preaching his message for decades, and he isn't the only one.

What makes you think we are any closer?  If I'm not mistaken, these unjust and immoral laws haven't stopped coming.  More unjust laws are being signed every day.

----------


## demolama

unfortunately there comes a point where you can't do anything with a soap or ballot box... and like TJ said the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time... Secession was the last thing on the founding father's plate when they opted to shrugged off the British monarchy...  They loved being British...but sometimes fighting back becomes the only choice.

----------


## Scofield

> unfortunately there comes a point where you can't do anything with a soap or ballot box... and like TJ said the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time... Secession was the last thing on the founding father's plate when they opted to shrugged off the British monarchy...  They loved being British...but sometimes fighting back becomes the only choice.


The British didn't have machine guns, tanks, militarized biological weapons, nukes, and a standing army as advanced as ours.

Nor did the British have television which could be used to brain wash and promote propaganda (TV is easier than newspaper and word of mouth) stating we are all a bunch of domestic terrorists.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The British didn't have machine guns, tanks, militarized biological weapons, nukes, and a standing army as advanced as ours.
> 
> Nor did the British have television which could be used to brain wash and promote propaganda (TV is easier than newspaper and word of mouth) stating we are all a bunch of domestic terrorists.


hence, the 1st and 2nd amendments.

----------

