Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

65 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

First, a reminder:

 Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

I'm interested in the thoughts and opinions of members about the actions being taken in a few states where Federal buildings and officers are being threatened with arrest for exercising their prerogative to enforce Federal Law or to protect Federal property in cities where the mayors or governors refuse to enforce state law.  

This is a major escalation of states actively nullifying Federal statutes and even demanding that state law take precedent.  For those who agree with the actions, how do you justify ignoring what is clearly written in our Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

It would help if you could show in the Constitution where it says Federal Officers are supposed to protect Federal Property.

I can show you where in the Constitution the people have a right to protest:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The part I bolded would void any law saying that protecting Federal Property trumps freedom of speech or assembly including laws that stop peaceful assembly just because someone else is violent.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 minutes ago, and then said:

This is a major escalation of states actively nullifying Federal statutes and even demanding that state law take precedent.  For those who agree with the actions, how do you justify ignoring what is clearly written in our Constitution?

The Constitiution didn't apply to me on the right to bear arms, the right to be unmolested on my property and the "triple jeopardy" clause with being indicted 3 times after the first two times my charges were dismissed as my actions were legal. So to me that document doesn't exist. 

Meanwhile I soooooo enjoy watching it all fall down. :yes:

Let it burn, let it all burn. ^_^

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 minute ago, Piney said:

The Constitiution didn't apply to me on the right to bear arms,

No, it DID apply but the state you live in crushed your rights over a period of time because of who the people continued to vote into office.  That seems to be a common story around the nation.  What we are seeing in these Blue cities is so far beyond the pale that any action to stop them may be seen as aggression.  It's ridiculous but if no one stands against it, we might as well forget about the union.  That will benefit no American.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, and then said:

No, it DID apply but the state you live in crushed your rights over a period of time because of who the people continued to vote into office.  That seems to be a common story around the nation.  What we are seeing in these Blue cities is so far beyond the pale that any action to stop them may be seen as aggression.  It's ridiculous but if no one stands against it, we might as well forget about the union.  That will benefit no American.  

Chris Christie who told my stepfather to get out of his face and threatened to pull Tribal funds from my real father is Blue? 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, and then said:

First, a reminder:

 Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

I'm interested in the thoughts and opinions of members about the actions being taken in a few states where Federal buildings and officers are being threatened with arrest for exercising their prerogative to enforce Federal Law or to protect Federal property in cities where the mayors or governors refuse to enforce state law.  

This is a major escalation of states actively nullifying Federal statutes and even demanding that state law take precedent.  For those who agree with the actions, how do you justify ignoring what is clearly written in our Constitution?

Well that's a good question, but it is based upon Congressional Authority not Presidential and then when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. Now this in mind, and since you conveniently left out, or do not fully understand it's meaning I have ask to what does this have to do with the current situation except to show that the President violated the clause by not taking it through an assembled Congress for approval??

Those Federal Agents were not authorized by Congress, in fact their opinion on the situation does not agree with the President, so basically according to the Supremacy Clause the President over stepped the Constitution by not taking the deployment of Federal Officers to Congress first. Is that your point???:D

 In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole U.S. political structure

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

 

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

It would help if you could show in the Constitution where it says Federal Officers are supposed to protect Federal Property.

I can show you where in the Constitution the people have a right to protest:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The part I bolded would void any law saying that protecting Federal Property trumps freedom of speech or assembly including laws that stop peaceful assembly just because someone else is violent.

You may find some useful information here: It appears that Congress according to the Supremacy Clause must decide on all questions concerning States rights and Federal Rights. So according to that sending Federal troops into States against their wishes must be approved by Congressional Authority and not Presidential. 

In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them."[3] A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, only when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.[4] No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole U.S. political structure

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

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
1 hour ago, and then said:

officers are being threatened with arrest for exercising their prerogative to enforce Federal Law or to protect Federal property

And these alleged arrest documents state that is why they are being arrested?  Can you point to the reporting on this?  And that's all they are doing?  They aren't illegally beating people? (Want some videos?) They have identification as being law enforcement officers, and are showing it on demand?

From https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-law-enforcement-officers-refuse-identify-themselves, in regard to officers who refuse to identify themselves and/or their agency:

Quote

The central question in analyzing such officers’ behavior would be whether or not it was “reasonable.” The Fourth Amendment precludes the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures, but ... there remains no fixed test for reasonableness. Instead, trial courts determine reasonableness using an objective standard on a case-by-case basis. The reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment focuses on the specific context and the threat that the suspect poses. In the event that an individual believes law enforcement failed to conduct a seizure reasonably, that individual may pursue a civil action against the relevant government officers for a violation of his or her constitutional rights.

One decent case on this, and all hell might break loose over what's happening right now..

1 hour ago, and then said:

in cities where the mayors or governors refuse to enforce state law  

Did they really?  Golly gosh, then they should be arrested.  If that's what is happening - again, please cite the occasions where they have 'refused to enforce state law'. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

BTW, I personally side with the Moms....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy06EjgLjgI

note that the video includes disturbing footage.  What sort of animals are these?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
razman

Like i said , trump supporters will see the OK in everything he does.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
6 hours ago, Piney said:

Chris Christie who told my stepfather to get out of his face and threatened to pull Tribal funds from my real father is Blue? 

?  No, I wouldn't judge him to be a Leftist, he's just a politician who will go the way the wind blows.  Most of them do.  I hold no brief for Christie or any other politician that is willing to ignore the rights of their citizens.  My point was that the reason your rights got crapped on was because for many years, that state has elected people who are willing to pass anti-Constitutional statutes and they face no electoral consequences.  I was under the impression that New Jersey has been reliably Democrat for decades. Is this not true?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, and then said:

First, a reminder:

 Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

I'm interested in the thoughts and opinions of members about the actions being taken in a few states where Federal buildings and officers are being threatened with arrest for exercising their prerogative to enforce Federal Law or to protect Federal property in cities where the mayors or governors refuse to enforce state law.  

This is a major escalation of states actively nullifying Federal statutes and even demanding that state law take precedent.  For those who agree with the actions, how do you justify ignoring what is clearly written in our Constitution?

Wow, it appears you thread has fallen in the toilet, how can you try and discuss something that by definition is a congressional Issue. So like I have said the conversation is mute, none of this was passed through Congress for approval, which it never would have approved in the first place, so using the Federal Agents in a Police role to stop violence in cities they were not asked for by the Governor is a direct violation of the Constitution according to the Supremacy Clause. Maybe you should just have this thread deleted, that way you will not have this misinterpretation of Constitutional Authority here to remind you of the mistake you have made.:D  

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, and then said:

?  No, I wouldn't judge him to be a Leftist, he's just a politician who will go the way the wind blows.  Most of them do.  I hold no brief for Christie or any other politician that is willing to ignore the rights of their citizens.  My point was that the reason your rights got crapped on was because for many years, that state has elected people who are willing to pass anti-Constitutional statutes and they face no electoral consequences.  I was under the impression that New Jersey has been reliably Democrat for decades. Is this not true?

Yes but there is a statue on the books where your allowed to pull iron on trespassers and shoot at them to chase them off, which is why my charges were dismissed the first 2 times. 

It wasn't about anti-constitutional laws. It was about stomping my Constitutional rights into the ground probably to protect a racist state trooper. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
39 minutes ago, and then said:

I was under the impression that New Jersey has been reliably Democrat for decades. Is this not true?

Lol, the People's Republic of Massachusetts has a Republican governor.

Even (gasp!) Vermont.

Best not to get over-invested in party labels.

My impression is that the current disputes are mainly political. It is creepy, not inherently unlawful, for federal agents dressed in camo to ride around in unmarked cars and snatch people off the streets. The people snatched may have causes of action, depending on the facts of the individual case.

There is a separate issue about the possible use of military troops, which has its own laws. The cases I've been reading about involve civilian federal law enforcement. Apparently, the officers have been assembled into ad hoc units from different branches of federal service (for example, federal marshals or customs and border officers). There are laws about where such officers can operate and under what circumstances. By and large, it's as the song says - "Go where you wanna wanna go, do what you wanna wanna do."

The Supremacy Clause would prevent the states from "nullifying" federal laws about where a federal marshal or a postal inspector can go and what they can do when they get there. If an officer of a state objects, then their fastest remedy is in federal court.

Or, perish the thought, in the voting booth this fall.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
33 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Lol, the People's Republic of Massachusetts has a Republican governor.

Even (gasp!) Vermont.

Best not to get over-invested in party labels.

My impression is that the current disputes are mainly political. It is creepy, not inherently unlawful, for federal agents dressed in camo to ride around in unmarked cars and snatch people off the streets. The people snatched may have causes of action, depending on the facts of the individual case.

There is a separate issue about the possible use of military troops, which has its own laws. The cases I've been reading about involve civilian federal law enforcement. Apparently, the officers have been assembled into ad hoc units from different branches of federal service (for example, federal marshals or customs and border officers). There are laws about where such officers can operate and under what circumstances. By and large, it's as the song says - "Go where you wanna wanna go, do what you wanna wanna do."

The Supremacy Clause would prevent the states from "nullifying" federal laws about where a federal marshal or a postal inspector can go and what they can do when they get there. If an officer of a state objects, then their fastest remedy is in federal court.

Or, perish the thought, in the voting booth this fall.

 

 

 

 

I think this thread is in the toilet, i dont know what andthen was thinking, but it certainly proves he has little or no knowledge of Constitutional Authority when it comes to how the Supremacy Clause is actually implemented. The one main factor he doesnt appear to understand is that Congress is the approving authority when it comes to the Supremacy Clause and there is no way they would allow Federal Agents to be sent to cities without the Governors and the Mayors approval. Since the actions were done without Congressional Approval in effect what the President did by sending those individuals without state approval is not legal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

... i dont know what andthen was thinking, ...

What he thinks Trump is not thinking ?

~

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

What he thinks Trump is not thinking ?

~

I suppose that's why andthen started this thread, because by doing this he obviously has made it clear he has no idea what the Supremacy Clause is used for or even how it is implemented.:unsure:

i am confused, people normally start threads about subjects they at least no something about, maybe he is just trying to fool us, that must be it!!:D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
9 hours ago, and then said:

First, a reminder:

 Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

I'm interested in the thoughts and opinions of members about the actions being taken in a few states where Federal buildings and officers are being threatened with arrest for exercising their prerogative to enforce Federal Law or to protect Federal property in cities where the mayors or governors refuse to enforce state law.  

This is a major escalation of states actively nullifying Federal statutes and even demanding that state law take precedent.  For those who agree with the actions, how do you justify ignoring what is clearly written in our Constitution?

The advantage of a federation is better representation of the people. The disadvantage is an increase in dysfunctional behaviour with the leaders of federalised states wanting to take their own member state in a different direction from the rest of the block.

A leader gets elected who is polarising the the left, a lefty governor starts with the dysfunctional behaviour, and they start trying to erode away the laws that the member state is subject too. If this is left unchallenged there is a possibility of a succession vote in that state. It needs stomping out.

All nations need the ability to centralise laws from a member state who has a leader activity subverting them. Such a move should be temporary, it should result in the prosecution of the governor in question, and an automatic election should occur to find their replacement. Once the new governor takes office decentralise back to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew

I'm from the south. Supremacy Claus visits every December.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
3 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The advantage of a federation is better representation of the people. The disadvantage is an increase in dysfunctional behaviour with the leaders of federalised states wanting to take their own member state in a different direction from the rest of the block.

A leader gets elected who is polarising the the left, a lefty governor starts with the dysfunctional behaviour, and they start trying to erode away the laws that the member state is subject too. If this is left unchallenged there is a possibility of a succession vote in that state. It needs stomping out.

All nations need the ability to centralise laws from a member state who has a leader activity subverting them. Such a move should be temporary, it should result in the prosecution of the governor in question, and an automatic election should occur to find their replacement. Once the new governor takes office decentralise back to them.

Dam Cookie Monster what does anything you said have to do with this thread? It appears you are trying to derail this thread, is that what you are trying to do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)

Well, if the President is operating under existing laws, then the issue of the Constitution - and the Supremacy Clause - presumably doesn't apply. 

So the question then becomes: under what laws is the President sending federal officers in ? If he's using the 1807 Insurrection Act then - again - this is not a constitutional issue, because the law was passed by Congress. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

The provisions of the act can be implemented under the following circumstances, in the judgement of the President of the United States....

  • when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
  • to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
  • to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).

It could be argued that parts (2) and (3) are applicable. However, it doesn't seem clear what happens if a State Governor refuses to co-operate ? It could be argued that the Act becomes inoperable ? I think that would be one for the Supremes. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
10 hours ago, and then said:

First, a reminder:

 Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

I'm interested in the thoughts and opinions of members about the actions being taken in a few states where Federal buildings and officers are being threatened with arrest for exercising their prerogative to enforce Federal Law or to protect Federal property in cities where the mayors or governors refuse to enforce state law.  

This is a major escalation of states actively nullifying Federal statutes and even demanding that state law take precedent.  For those who agree with the actions, how do you justify ignoring what is clearly written in our Constitution?

In my opinion,   Officers of the law have no "prerogatives" to excercise. .?   They are bound by the law....period. ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
15 minutes ago, lightly said:

In my opinion,   Officers of the law have no "prerogatives" to excercise. .?   They are bound by the law....period. ?

"Prerogative" means a Right or Privilege. Hence they have a 'right' to enforce Federal Law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

"Prerogative" means a Right or Privilege. Hence they have a 'right' to enforce Federal Law. 

I don't understand how their performance of duty is an excercise of their rights.   A right or privilege can be excercised or refrained from the excercise thereof?   That is a choice.    they are not deployed to excercise their rights...they are there to follow orders...not to choose which orders to follow? 

 

Edited by lightly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
10 minutes ago, lightly said:

I don't understand how their performance of duty is an excercise of their rights.   A right or privilege can be excercised or refrained from the excercise thereof?   That is a choice.    they are not deployed to excercise their rights...they are there to follow orders...not to choose which orders to follow? 

 

I think it's language from .. like.. the 1800's ? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.