Comment

Comment by JL Gawlik on March 20, 2011 at 1:05pm

Referring to Article VI, Claus 2:  QUALIFICATIONS ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY: THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE:
The Supremacy Clause imposed the following rule on all state courts:

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 Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.

 

The Supremacy Clause thereby described a hierarchy by which state (and federal) judges would prioritize federal and state enactments. Technically, the Supremacy Clause merely clarified rules that would have prevailed even without the Clause. However, the rule was spelled out to minimize future disputes. (In accordance with the maxim, Abundans cautela non nocet ("Overflowing caution does not harm")

 

The most obvious prescription of the Supremacy Claus was that the Constitution and duly-enacted federal laws and treaties were superior to state constitutions and state laws. The Supremacy  Clause further suggested the relative rank of different kind of federal enactments. The U.S. Constitution was mentioned first-before "Laws...made in Pursuance thereof"- to indicate that the Constitution was superior to statutes. Statutes listed second and treaties third, but the Founding-Era understanding was that treaties and statutes were of equal force. (Continental Congress 727; congressional notes of James Madison for March 21, 1787.) As was true of successive inconsistent statutes, a later enactment (whether treaty of statute) could repeal an earlier one (whether treaty or statute).

 

The Supremacy Clause referred to laws "in Pursuance" of the Constitution but to treaties as "made, under the Authority of the United States." The latter was to affirm the validity of treaties negotiated by Congress before the Constitution was adopted. This was a matter of concern, since during the 1780's most states had passed laws contradicting some of the terms of the peach treaty by which Britain had recognized the independence of the United States, thereby jeopardizing the national interest. (31 J. Continental Congress. 781-874 October 13, 1786; containing the report of Confederation Foreign Secretary John Jay; 32 id at 124-25 March 21, 1787 & 177-84 April 13, 1787 communication by Congress to offending states.) Accordingly, the Constitution also included a grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts to adjudicate treaties "which shall be made, under [the United States'] Authority. (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1)

 

Thus, states and federal courts were to apply sources of the law in the following hierarchy:

 

Highest: The U.S. Constitution

 

Next Highest: U.S. laws and treaties, duly made within the scope of federal power.

 

Next: State constitutions

 

Lowest: State Laws

 

Federal actions taken outside the scope of federal power were not, of course to be law at all.

 

Reference "The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said And Meant" by Robert G. Natelson

Hope this helps all to understand what that article actually says, great book by the way.

 

This is why it is so important that we UPHOLD and DEFEND our U.S. Constitution. The oath that our elected representatives swear to before taking office (personally i would love to see a law IF you break your oath of office, you are thrown out of office and loose any benefits and retirement.):

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

 

 

Comment by Armando Delgado on March 20, 2011 at 8:51am

Roma and Tom, what I believe is that we are a nation of laws and that we should honor all our international treaties and agreements.

Comment by J.R. on March 19, 2011 at 8:58pm

The below is from my blogpost that was featured by FCTP today, titled "SHOULD THE U.S. ENTER INTO A WAR ACTION IN LIBYA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS?"

It's interesting to see the diversity in the authority upon which the United States has engaged in military actions since World War II, which was the last war that was officially declared by the Congress of the United States, through the authority vested in it by the U.S. Constitution. In 1973, following debate about presidential power with regard to troops having been deployed to Vietnam without a declaration of war, a compromise was reached by passage of the War Powers Resolution, which clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the U.S. and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress explaining the status of such deployments and limited the extent of time American forces could be employed without a formal declaration of war.

I believe Congress acted unconstitutionally in passing a war powers act (law) that established circumstances and conditions under which the President of the United States could deploy troops to foreign nations, thus ceding Congress' sole constitutionally-mandated power and authority to declare war. In doing so, Congress ceded an enormous amount of its own mandated military authority and power to the President. This resolution was passed AFTER the Vietnam "War" was over..."

(You can read the rest and use further links provided below the entire post that I wrote.)

http://www.fctpcommunity.org/profiles/blog/list?promoted=1&xg_s...

Comment by J.R. on March 19, 2011 at 8:40pm

"RON PAUL: WHY OBAMA IS WRONG ON LIBYA"

"U. S. Congressman Ron Paul, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee and honorary chairman of Campaign for Liberty, criticized President Obama’s decision to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in a video shot earlier today. In the video, Congressman Paul argues that:

1. The action is an act of War.

2. The no-fly zone is unconstitutional because Congress has not authorized it, a point Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar agrees with.

3. President Obama has illegally ceded U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

4. The United States cannot afford the financial burden of more military action in the Middle East."

To watch Congressman Paul's video, click on this link to get to his webpage: 

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-18/ron-paul-why-obama-is-wrong-on-li...(The below links on the topic of interfering in the affairs of foreign nations are also found at the  link provided above) just in case these don't work. Ron Paul: Leave Libya Alone!

Ron Paul: Libya Is Not the American People’s Fight

Comment by Armando Delgado on March 19, 2011 at 6:34pm

Folks, I stated historical facts regarding the UN and some of our military involvements in the past. Those were not opinions. The issue in question was the legality of the US president engaging American troops in Libya. I don't see the relevance of that issue to the IMF, the budget, or the [Heal Care Bill], or is it  the Health Care Bill?

 

 

Comment by William Korach on March 19, 2011 at 6:30pm

The United States should determine what is right for the United States as set forth in the Constitution. The question is, should we take action against Qaddafi or other foreign threats? If so, do we need an act of Congress, or can the Commander in Chief act in a limited capacity to protect the United States from a foreign threat? There is much evidence to suggest that the Commander in Chief can order covert operations, limited military operations, economic actions and even assassination of a foreign threat. I am not talking about a declaration of war, I am talking about a limited action. We want and need a President who can be trusted to make these kinds of decisions. Obama cannot be trusted with these kinds of decisions, but that does not mean that a Commander in Chief should be denied that authority. It just means we need another Commander in Chief. Even the Constitution cannot prevent damage if America suffers from poor leadership.

Comment by Armando Delgado on March 19, 2011 at 2:43pm

The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter in 1945, (by a vote of 89 to 2, by the way) thus committing our country to  respect the rulings of that international body.

 

 

Comment by J.R. on March 19, 2011 at 11:42am

There is no provision whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution for ANY American President to "by-pass the U.S. Constitution" to do anything, including committing this nation to engage in ANY war.  There is also NO provision in the U.S. Constitution for ANY American President to commit this nation to a treaty with the United Nations, or any other international group, that is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and its delegated power to only the U.S. Congress to declare war.

The U.S. Congress did NOT approve a Declaration of War authorizing the military action in Korea, or in any war thereafter.  Entering into that U.N. treaty was an extra-Constitutional act that undermined our nation's sovereignty to the extent that it set a precedent for the United States to ignore the Constitution, nullify the Constitutional mandate that only Congress can declare war, and allow the United States to prosecute an illegal war under the auspices of a corrupt international body that has consistently proven it has no regard for our Constitution, our sovereignty, or our nation and its people. Since the Korean "War," this country has continued to engage in illegal wars under the War Powers Resolution that it has consistentlly violated by ignoring and exceeding its most important provision, the Congressional mandate of strict time limits.   

The feckless and unaccountable United Nations does not even adhere to its own Charter and is comprised of political and regional blocs that hold the United States, its form of government, its power around the world, and the rights and freedoms of its people in total disregard and contempt.  It's time to get the U.S. out of the U.N. and do whatever is necessary, legally, to make American Presidents strictly adhere to the U.S. Constitution and the United States Code of Laws, only. 

Prior to the national election In 2012, we need to send another strong message to all candidates that there is a litmus test for their commitment to following the U.S. Constitution and laws of this land only... not international law.    

Comment by Armando Delgado on March 19, 2011 at 10:16am

The reason many American presidents can bypass the US Constitution and involve our nation in certain wars is that those wars were not declared by the US but by the UN. For example, the Korean War was declared by the UN to protect South Korea from invasion by the North Koreans. The US was involved because we are participants in the UN and were obligated by our treaty agreement with that body to provide military support for that conflict.

Comment by Ernest N. Mulich on March 18, 2011 at 9:39pm

Thanks Billie

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page