The purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that regardless of what state you were living in, you were sure to have all of the rights that are expressed in the Federal Constitution. Basically, if a State were to say, for example, that the 4th amendment was no longer valid, the Supremacy Clause would override it, ensuring the rights of the people of that state. It was simply intended to make sure that States didn't take it upon themselves to limit the rights of its citizens. The way that it is used these days is not what was intended.
We basically already have. There's nothing wrong with with change based on the needs of society. A As long as it's not dumb easily then a flexible breathing document that can readily change to the needs of a rapidly changing society is essential to prevent us from being held back by ideas of yesterday year. Hell we should go back to the drawing board and start from scratch every 75 years or so
I'm going to agree with Jason on this. Section two of VI mentions the Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in Pursuance (meaning carrying out the plan of action) thereof (meaning the thing just mentioned: the Constitution). That means the laws are to be made in accordance to the Constitutionality, and if the states pass an unconstitutional law, it's the Constitution that will have the final say, not some body of federally appointed robes
Thank you Mr Hughes...I am taking online classes and the book explanation of this confused me. Having a live person (via video) talk it through was great. I know who my daddy is...lol. (meant jokingly - not perverse)
So if the federal government is supreme in all areas of governance and over all powers how can the 10th amendment mean anything? How do you “reserve” powers to the states, where the federal government can actually overrule any exercise of those powers? What of the argument that the supremacy clause limits federal supremacy to acts of the federal government “pursuant” to the constitution, including its limitation of federal authority to its delegated powers?
The issue about the translation is it doesn’t mention the words “Federal” once. In reference to it stating “The United States” it states that after the mention of the Constitution. It lays out that every judge in every state and in my interpretation is referring to physical location, not if they are federal or state judges, and mentions that it’s notwithstanding anything within the Constitution meaning “if the Constitution gives power to the state in a matter, than that supersedes this article. Meaning it was referring to every state when it says United States, the the governing body of the United States known as the federal government. I constantly hear ppl saying it “says” that federal government trumps state. Doesn’t say that at all.
The tenth limits the Federal Government to powers delegated in the Constitution (Article I Section 8). The complexity is in the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, all of which are interpretable to broaden Federal power. The Supreme Court decides but in the end the intention, I think, was keep local powers (education, drugs) local while also giving the Feds enough power to adopt to changing circumstances/times.
The federal government doesn't have th3 power and authority to pass laws that go against the constitution. The only power they have are those listed in article 1 section 8 of the constitution. And the 14h ammendment makes that clear also.
Ok so for example intruding on domestic issues with private international law without the sdisclaimer or consent of the governed, and without state power to do so. If the fed coerces the State to adopt a foreign law when the contract clause clearly states that no state shall enter into a treaty. And the state does it anyway. What are thoughts on this?
The executive branch of the federal government enforces federal immigration law, which is written by Congress, and signed by the president. In California, some cities have created 'sanctuary cities', where they have openly stated that they will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, as it causes distress and distrust in local communities. In your opinion, are sanctuary cities operating in violation of federal law, or are they within their rights to not cooperate with immigration authorities?
The supremacy clause surpasses the tenth amendment which prohibits the federal government??? Or article 1 section 8 powers of Congress which limits their spending?
Exactly. If the supremacy clause really does give the federal government final say over everything then the 10th amendment is utterly meaningless. That can’t be what the framers of the constitution meant. Yet today the courts and mini scholars essentially assert that the constitution is saying in the supremacy clause that the federal government is supreme over everything while the 10th amendment says the states are supreme in everything except the powers delegated to the federal government.
@@walterbailey2950 article 1 section 8 powers of Congress explains their sending limits which have been violated for a long time. And we the people hear crickets from state governor’s and legislatures why? Are they incompetent or in on it? County sheriffs who have the authority to enforce state law with the help of the state constitution should make arrests at the state level. Why can’t a governor have the house members and senator’s arrested for violating their oath of office and larceny at the state level?
@@scottcampbell2585 Because while such acts may be unconstitutional they’re not criminal offenses by individuals. There’s a widely held misconception on the right today that if an official ignores the constitution they’ve broken a criminal statute. No such statutes exist. And the constitution doesn’t say anything about such criminal offenses. James Madison’s remedy was for state legislatures to pass an act voiding any federal action or law that exceeds the delegated powers of the federal government. He was the main author of the US Constitution so that’s where I think you should focus your efforts.
@@scottcampbell2585 Yes that would be consistent with the original intent of the constitution to preserve the sovereign rights of the states. The problem is that you would need to get a majority of the states to officially agree to convene such a convention. And even then today’s federal government would almost certainly try to claim that it was an illegal act, even though constitutional history doesn’t support the idea that it would be illegal.
This video is sloppy and misleading. Not all federal law is supreme. ONLY federal laws "made in pursuance" of the Constitution, meaning in following its enumerated powers, is supreme. This is explained clearly by Hamilton in Federalist 33, where he declares federal laws which are not in following the Constitution are "merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such".
2nd article question. That means the constitution is law of the land right? Cause if it was meant to be a blanket clause, saying all federal laws are law of the land wouldn't that mean places like Washington State are breaking the Constitution because they made weed legal or whatever they did?
Only Federal law "made in persuance" of legitimate constitutional authority is supreme. Law with no constitutional authority is "merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such." (See Federalist 33 for more on this) But who decides what is constitutional and what is not? Hint: the Constitution never designated the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. As Scalia admitted, "We made that up."
If the supreme court were to rule the supremacy clause unconstitutional in any case it would take away any possibility of having the authority to make such a ruling because unless the supremacy clause really does grant the federal government supremacy over all things there’s no way that the federal judiciary has judicial review authority.
Q: If I'm accused in a state for a jaywalking crime and I raise the argument that there was no harm and the judge tells me no harm need the state to prosecute you on this statute, can I turn and say: Supreme Court's injury-in-fact mandate preempts your decision?
No. Absolutely not. If the federal government wins a case in the SCOTUS that jaywalking laws are unconstitutional, then and only then do you have a case. Laws are not adjudicated on the street.
Didn't Hamilton argue against the Bill of Rights. If the original intention of the fourth amendment was not to protect you against the state, are you cool with states ignoring the search warrant provisions of the exclusionary rule if they want to? That was the intention. Or are you ok with that reading? Cause Alabama did not have the best record with suspects due process until the bill of rights was re interpreted in the 20th century.
I do absolutely believe that the individual, the community, the state were all expected to play a great part in running their lives and that the current Hegelian-inspired progressive top-down authoritarian hell-hole of Federal dominance is NOT what was wanted. Some states should be Liberal, some Progressive, some Conservative, some Libertarian, some Republican -let's see what works! Instead we have a one-size-fits-all approach in so many aspects of our lives. Thanks for your time Keith. :)
The supremacy clause basically means any rule code statute or law that is contrary to the supreme law life freedom morality and property is not with standing and not with standing basically means no in void from its inception
No it doesn’t mean that. It simply means that the federal government is supreme and the final word over any powers that are explicitly delegated to it under the constitution. It’s only talking about instances where the federal government has supreme authority in US law. And if you follow the original intent of the constitution those instances are quite limited
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the federal government did not exist. "The United States" does NOT refer to the federal government, but instead to the Union of the 13 States. The States were established as SOVEREIGN entities, with the full weight and power of the Nations such as England, France, Germany, etc. The federal government was formed later and was DELEGATED few and defined powers with the consent of the States and the people, none of which included control of the INTERNAL OBJECTS of the Union. Those powers were restricted to EXTERNAL OBJECTS, which are war,(only by consent of the Senate), peace, foreign affairs, trade, and the defense of the borders.
+James Fisher I agree to a certain extent but how do you explain article 1 section 8? Not to mention the supremacy clause itself. And obviously this analogy doesn't count for the other 37 states that joined the nation following the Constitution, at least that line of argument.
But if its we the people through our Representation and the SCOTUS who defines whats Constitutional then there is no breaking of any Constitutional law. Only according to your interpretations and what you believe in original intent. What makes the system so brilliant, evil, genius and dysfunctional is that the words themselves become carriers of flexibility and limitations all at once. So I vehemently disagree and agree with you!
NO wrong the constitution is clear the state nor th3 federal government have the right to pass laws that goes against the constitution. Tje constitution is the law of the lamd. All atate legislatures governors presidents and members of Congress are bound by the constitution.
All members of government are ordinary people like you and mean. None of them have power and authority over us. The constitution tells the fedral and state governments whqg they can or cant do
So stop trying to interpret the meaning of the constitution to your authoritarianism view points. The cons was put in place to protect our rights and limit the power of the government fedral and state.
The Constitution wins. Federal laws and treaties made in pursuance of it win. State laws made in conflict with it do not win. Federal laws and treaties made in conflict with it do not win.
Well according to modern US courts it resolves it because the 10th amendment really doesn’t mean anything. In their reading the 10th amendment was pointless padding added to the constitution and has no force of law even though it’s part of the constitution
Remember, the Founding Fathers were a diverse group. Some of them probably wanted a very strong central government (hmm, Federalists) while others maybe less so. That's why it's so hard to give the Constitution such a strict historical reading. (I'm enjoying this debate. I may disagree with you, but you come at it with an honest disagreement of opinions, without hyperbole.)
It becomes easier when you focus on the difference between the opinions they each separately or collectively held, the back and forth discussions and drafts they may have considered, and the final product, to which they signed their names. They were diverse. The Constitution is not.
frankly i didnt find your comment amusing, you comment at least 50 times on his videos i hate every one of your comments id like you to stop commenting because no one cares about your comment. so shut up keep your bald head and your comments to ur self
Very recently, a Representative from Texas introduced House Bill 948, which would ban abortions in Texas at any stage. In the bill itself, it proposes that the bill would take precedence over federal law. THIS is why I looked up the Supremacy law in the first place. I know Texas has been fighting abortion law for a while. I just cannot see why anyone has not mentioned the Supremacy Clause in regards to this bill. Am I missing something, or is this bill not Unconstitutional at its core?
Got a question. On Friday 6-26-15 the US Supreme court ruled that this same sex marriage is now law of the land in all 50 states. Why don't the people of each of their state vote on this? Isn't this taking the power away from the people? Why does the Supreme Court have the power and authority to do this? Isn't this unconstitutional? Is the Supremacy Clause have something to do with this?
Dexter001 If a state law violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause then it's unconstitutional. Just like in Brown v Board of Ed. You don't get to vote on segregation or if women should vote or if blue eyed people can get married. Maybe this new video will help..... ua-cam.com/video/yxtU_HZnYW0/v-deo.html
Keith Hughes Thanks for responding. Another question can this kind of marriage (SSM) get overturned of banned in the future or can it be challenged? Also is not Aids or some sexual diseases come into play? reason because some states have incest laws to prohibit siblings to marrying. Did WATCH the video link, Thanks!!!
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) States make many laws that are contrary to the constitution and or Supreme Court case law, one for instance is the stop and frisk Law.
Sadly, the part 1 of 14th amendment as been grossly and deliberately misinterpreted and misapplied, a separate discussion. Defining marriage and permitting nationwide abortion are not powers delegated to the federal government.Thus, per the 10th Amendment, powers not specifically delegated by the states to the federal government reside with the States and the People alone. This is so fundamental, and yet modern living constitutionalists and judicial revisionists refuse to honor this foundational principle. Tragic.
i woned to tell you wen you are looking at the camra you start to blink a lot so maby you shoud only blink ones becus it probly scars people wen you do that.
Your comment and particularly its spelling made my blinking problem worse. Thank you for the constructive criticism. I have an appointment with a blinking therapist on Monday.
But the interpretations you speak so absolutely about are just that, interpretations. We the people in the end (I am agreeing with you!) hold the power, we hold it through our voices, our feet and through our interpretations of words which are very interpretable to begin with. If they wanted a strict intentionalist reading they would of put in their rationals and mindset. But they didn't. I think on purpose... to allow for our funky multi century ideological bickering to occur...
I have been countering some of your points (all well-intended and with an air of kindness and respect) in this thread, but would like to point out that in the ACTUAL end, it is the States who triumph - of course you have to get 3/4ths of them to agree, but the States themselves (who gave birth to the Constitution and the Federal government) hold the ultimate authority. But... in all cases in recent time until current, you are totally right, the Feds win, we lose. Freedom for the few.. :)
In the end, the Feds triumph. The complexity is in how the Feds regulate pot... which is in the interstate commerce clause. If the Supreme court found the way the Feds regulate pot was unconstitutional then they could not trump state law but for the moment, the court recognizes the Feds ability to regulate. And Washington state is not breaking the law as much as dancing within some grey areas of Federalism. If they made it legal to leave the state with it, perhaps that would be more blatant.
Federalism is just a sham if the federal government always triumphs even in areas where it has not been delegated power under the constitution. It’s simply a non sequitur to say that powers are reserved to the states as they are in the 10th amendment but can also be overruled by the federal government
I get your point but come on, Alabama lynched human beings and denied a whole class of people from participating in society. And the intention of the fourth was not for the state but for the Feds only. I believe people are good to but we need a minimum level of standards when it comes to equity and due process. I enjoy our debates by the way... Im off to the 3rd amendment. talk tomorrow!
😂 They all have taken oaths and some break the oaths and have NO CLUE about the possibility of getting arrested for the violation of human rights of others.
Obviously, you can’t read, or you simply ignore the qualifying phrase ... “which shall be made in pursuance thereof ...” In other words, for a federal law to be supreme to a state law, it must involve one of the specific powers granted to the federal government by the states. Remember, the states created the federal government, not the other way around. Not every federal law is supreme to state laws, and when they’re not, the states can tell the Feds to pound sand.
Well it should be said that he’s hardly the only one. While you are in my reading of the constitution entirely correct, somehow the entire US legal system and government have gotten away with ignoring this for over 150 years.
But nothing in the constitution says we must be dictated by their intentions. I don't care what the intentions are of the people who wrote the directions to Monopoly, Ill just use the words in the rules. And different people will have different readings and together we will bang it out within the system we have constructed. You know a lot of those enlightened founders owned human beings and had terrible thoughts about how life worked. so Id rather just honor the words than their intentions. :)
Yes he did. But the Bill of Rights was included. The original intent of the Fourth Amendment is to protect you from an aggressive state. I believe that people are generally good and mean well, if you do, then you should trust them to learn and grow - not be coddled and led through life like children. You bring up Alabama, I bring up the modern Police State of the Federal Government.. Patriot Act, NDA, wiretaps, NSA, etc.
I guess I just am baffled that people won't agree when the intentions were for freedom, self-rule, and a limited fed gov. Yeah, a lot of those founders owned human beings - as did every people on the planet at one time or another. We also fought a war and passed Amendments over that issue. Honoring words: "First do no harm" Hey! They didn't say no "little" harm, so then we can do "little" harms! Oh! They only said First! So secondly we can do harm! This is a very scary nihilistic stuff.
The states decide what is not specifically given to the Federal government. If there is a question, then it goes to the States. Just because I don't want 9 people in black robes deciding what should be law for everyone in the nation does not mean I don't want law! :)
Excellent job! But.. (haha) the "supremacy clause" is bound by the previous Articles, which delegated the specific and enumerated (which are limited!) powers to the Congress, Executive, and the Supreme Court. Any power not listed in these previous Articles are not, repeat, NOT granted to the Federal government and, as stated in the 10th Amendment, are reserved to the States, or the people. So, the "supremacy clause" means the Fed Gov is ONLY supreme in those limited areas and no others. Word!
You say these words, "original intent" - uh, what other intent would there be? The only way to change the Constitution is to amend it, not to appoint sympathetic justices who will make up pretzle-logic interpretations. Amending is hard (states have power!) so of course those who wish to cheat will cheat! I can't get a car loan and not pay then argue that the holder of a contract is a believer in "original intent" and I interpret that to be giving me a free car. It's just rationally unsound.
Who interpreted these laws. When Intead that it looks like it’s reiterating protection of civilian rights... that the government has to follow the law... And treaties! Who cares about the federal government this America which is given power by the people... don’t known though...
where in the Constitution does it state that the States are sovereign? where does it say the judges shall have absolute immunity? answer it does not, english common law does.
It doesn’t say it explicitly but it implies it in referring to the states as plural rather than as simply parts of the United States and also in the 10th amendment by reserving powers to the states, and saying that the powers of the federal government are merely “delegated” rather than inherent. In other words the sovereign states have delegated those powers to their agent the federal government. After the constitution was written its primary author James Madison is also very explicit in describing the states as sovereign and even able to nullify federal law they deem unconstitutional. James Madison says he sings in the Virginia resolutions.
@@walterbailey2950 as long as the States derive their authority from God, they shall remain sovereign. that is what sovereign means and everyone knows that fact. Divine right of States.
@@johnhumphrey9953 Madison’s theory was a little different. He and his colleagues were republicans not theocrats. The American republican idea is that sovereignty ultimately derives from the people and is expressed through the states primarily as their representatives.
@@walterbailey2950 wrong, it comes from English Common Law. if the states derived their authority from the people, the states could not be sovereign by definition.
Part II as explained in video is VERY misleading and buys into the mistaken notion that federal laws trump State laws. Not true. If you read the relevant Federalist papers, the key to fully understanding Part II are the words "which shall be made in pursuance thereof". Slowly read Part II again. What the founders said is that all powers specifically/expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitutition, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, cannot be usurped by the individual States. But, as importantly, and in conjunction with Amendments 9 and 10, all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or not specifically/expressly prohibited to the States, devolve upon the States or the People, and that, therefore, the federal government may not usurp those State powers, whether those powers are expressed or implied. In effect then, fed exercise of authority is strictly limited to only those powers granted to it by the States when the Constitution was ratified, and State exercise of authority is strictly limited to all other powers, whether expressed or implied and not specifically denied to the States in the Constitution. In short, both the feds and teh States must operate within the constraints laid out in the Constitution. It's really that simple, and yet this part of Art VI is constantly misinterpreted.
@@stratagama As I recall, the founders viewed the final arbiters as the People --not the "supreme" court. So long as SCOTUS remains within its Art III parameters, their interpretation is supreme Art III powers are very specific. Today we are taught to always defer to Supreme Court rulings/opinions/judgements in ALL matters. Doing so is the very definition of tyranny. Read the relevant Federalist Papers. Not rocket science.
Federalist papers are legally speaking irrelevant the opinions of people dead for 200 years is also irrelevant. if they are disgusted with the society we have created then I say GOOD,
@@stratagama The basis of our law is the Constitution. To understand what the framers and ratifiers had in mind as to original meaning and intent, the Federalist Papers, State ratifying documents (where they exist) and memos penned by the founders are crucial. Again, the Supreme Court is supreme only in areas specifically described in Art III. Sadly, most law students are taught that case law alone, whether it be revisionist or otherwise completely in violation of original meaning and intent, is the supreme law of the land. Absolutely not so. If that were true, why bother having a Constitution at all. Just delegate total power in all matters to SCOTUS.
The purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that regardless of what state you were living in, you were sure to have all of the rights that are expressed in the Federal Constitution. Basically, if a State were to say, for example, that the 4th amendment was no longer valid, the Supremacy Clause would override it, ensuring the rights of the people of that state. It was simply intended to make sure that States didn't take it upon themselves to limit the rights of its citizens. The way that it is used these days is not what was intended.
thank you this really helped me out
Good idea but not true. The 14th amendment is was made the BoR applicable to the states
That is not even close to how it works... like I don’t even know where to begin
We basically already have. There's nothing wrong with with change based on the needs of society. A
As long as it's not dumb easily then a flexible breathing document that can readily change to the needs of a rapidly changing society is essential to prevent us from being held back by ideas of yesterday year. Hell we should go back to the drawing board and start from scratch every 75 years or so
I'm going to agree with Jason on this. Section two of VI mentions the Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in Pursuance (meaning carrying out the plan of action) thereof (meaning the thing just mentioned: the Constitution). That means the laws are to be made in accordance to the Constitutionality, and if the states pass an unconstitutional law, it's the Constitution that will have the final say, not some body of federally appointed robes
Thank yourself, that is a pretty impressive feat.
Just found your channel. YT algorithm sucks. Sub'd
Thank you Mr Hughes...I am taking online classes and the book explanation of this confused me. Having a live person (via video) talk it through was great. I know who my daddy is...lol. (meant jokingly - not perverse)
You are a life saver. I have college finals coming up in few days and this is great way to refresh my memory. i will subscribe
So if the federal government is supreme in all areas of governance and over all powers how can the 10th amendment mean anything? How do you “reserve” powers to the states, where the federal government can actually overrule any exercise of those powers?
What of the argument that the supremacy clause limits federal supremacy to acts of the federal government “pursuant” to the constitution, including its limitation of federal authority to its delegated powers?
Th state can’t stop😢you from exercising your Unalienable rights but they do .
For grammar is correct not. For the Constitution has grammar correction now?
The issue about the translation is it doesn’t mention the words “Federal” once. In reference to it stating “The United States” it states that after the mention of the Constitution. It lays out that every judge in every state and in my interpretation is referring to physical location, not if they are federal or state judges, and mentions that it’s notwithstanding anything within the Constitution meaning “if the Constitution gives power to the state in a matter, than that supersedes this article. Meaning it was referring to every state when it says United States, the the governing body of the United States known as the federal government. I constantly hear ppl saying it “says” that federal government trumps state. Doesn’t say that at all.
That’s a very good point. For example weed is legal in 15 states but illegal on the federal level why is the federal law not trumping state law there?
How do we have state gun laws? Isn't that in violation of the 2nd amendment?
What was the point of the 14th amendment if the states were already bound to yeh constitution by the supremacy clause?
The tenth limits the Federal Government to powers delegated in the Constitution (Article I Section 8). The complexity is in the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, all of which are interpretable to broaden Federal power. The Supreme Court decides but in the end the intention, I think, was keep local powers (education, drugs) local while also giving the Feds enough power to adopt to changing circumstances/times.
The federal government doesn't have th3 power and authority to pass laws that go against the constitution. The only power they have are those listed in article 1 section 8 of the constitution. And the 14h ammendment makes that clear also.
Ok so for example intruding on domestic issues with private international law without the sdisclaimer or consent of the governed, and without state power to do so. If the fed coerces the State to adopt a foreign law when the contract clause clearly states that no state shall enter into a treaty. And the state does it anyway. What are thoughts on this?
The executive branch of the federal government enforces federal immigration law, which is written by Congress, and signed by the president. In California, some cities have created 'sanctuary cities', where they have openly stated that they will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, as it causes distress and distrust in local communities. In your opinion, are sanctuary cities operating in violation of federal law, or are they within their rights to not cooperate with immigration authorities?
10th amendment
The supremacy clause surpasses the tenth amendment which prohibits the federal government??? Or article 1 section 8 powers of Congress which limits their spending?
Exactly. If the supremacy clause really does give the federal government final say over everything then the 10th amendment is utterly meaningless. That can’t be what the framers of the constitution meant. Yet today the courts and mini scholars essentially assert that the constitution is saying in the supremacy clause that the federal government is supreme over everything while the 10th amendment says the states are supreme in everything except the powers delegated to the federal government.
@@walterbailey2950 article 1 section 8 powers of Congress explains their sending limits which have been violated for a long time. And we the people hear crickets from state governor’s and legislatures why? Are they incompetent or in on it? County sheriffs who have the authority to enforce state law with the help of the state constitution should make arrests at the state level. Why can’t a governor have the house members and senator’s arrested for violating their oath of office and larceny at the state level?
@@scottcampbell2585 Because while such acts may be unconstitutional they’re not criminal offenses by individuals.
There’s a widely held misconception on the right today that if an official ignores the constitution they’ve broken a criminal statute. No such statutes exist. And the constitution doesn’t say anything about such criminal offenses.
James Madison’s remedy was for state legislatures to pass an act voiding any federal action or law that exceeds the delegated powers of the federal government. He was the main author of the US Constitution so that’s where I think you should focus your efforts.
@@walterbailey2950 convention of states
@@scottcampbell2585 Yes that would be consistent with the original intent of the constitution to preserve the sovereign rights of the states. The problem is that you would need to get a majority of the states to officially agree to convene such a convention. And even then today’s federal government would almost certainly try to claim that it was an illegal act, even though constitutional history doesn’t support the idea that it would be illegal.
This video is sloppy and misleading.
Not all federal law is supreme. ONLY federal laws "made in pursuance" of the Constitution, meaning in following its enumerated powers, is supreme.
This is explained clearly by Hamilton in Federalist 33, where he declares federal laws which are not in following the Constitution are "merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such".
Just an intro, take it for that and it'll sit easier. Interesting point though.
2nd article question. That means the constitution is law of the land right? Cause if it was meant to be a blanket clause, saying all federal laws are law of the land wouldn't that mean places like Washington State are breaking the Constitution because they made weed legal or whatever they did?
Only Federal law "made in persuance" of legitimate constitutional authority is supreme. Law with no constitutional authority is "merely acts of usurpation and will deserve to be treated as such." (See Federalist 33 for more on this)
But who decides what is constitutional and what is not? Hint: the Constitution never designated the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. As Scalia admitted, "We made that up."
Someone told me to use the article 6 supremacy clause to fight a speeding ticket does that make sense or not?
Can the U.S. Supreme Court rule the Supremcy Clause unconstitutional in some instances?
If the supreme court were to rule the supremacy clause unconstitutional in any case it would take away any possibility of having the authority to make such a ruling because unless the supremacy clause really does grant the federal government supremacy over all things there’s no way that the federal judiciary has judicial review authority.
Q: If I'm accused in a state for a jaywalking crime and I raise the argument that there was no harm and the judge tells me no harm need the state to prosecute you on this statute, can I turn and say: Supreme Court's injury-in-fact mandate preempts your decision?
No. Absolutely not. If the federal government wins a case in the SCOTUS that jaywalking laws are unconstitutional, then and only then do you have a case. Laws are not adjudicated on the street.
Didn't Hamilton argue against the Bill of Rights. If the original intention of the fourth amendment was not to protect you against the state, are you cool with states ignoring the search warrant provisions of the exclusionary rule if they want to? That was the intention. Or are you ok with that reading? Cause Alabama did not have the best record with suspects due process until the bill of rights was re interpreted in the 20th century.
I do absolutely believe that the individual, the community, the state were all expected to play a great part in running their lives and that the current Hegelian-inspired progressive top-down authoritarian hell-hole of Federal dominance is NOT what was wanted.
Some states should be Liberal, some Progressive, some Conservative, some Libertarian, some Republican -let's see what works! Instead we have a one-size-fits-all approach in so many aspects of our lives.
Thanks for your time Keith. :)
Thanks. I enjoy the civil conversation on Keith's threads.
The supremacy clause basically means any rule code statute or law that is contrary to the supreme law life freedom morality and property is not with standing and not with standing basically means no in void from its inception
No it doesn’t mean that. It simply means that the federal government is supreme and the final word over any powers that are explicitly delegated to it under the constitution. It’s only talking about instances where the federal government has supreme authority in US law. And if you follow the original intent of the constitution those instances are quite limited
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the federal government did not exist. "The United States" does NOT refer to the federal government, but instead to the Union of the 13 States. The States were established as SOVEREIGN entities, with the full weight and power of the Nations such as England, France, Germany, etc. The federal government was formed later and was DELEGATED few and defined powers with the consent of the States and the people, none of which included control of the INTERNAL OBJECTS of the Union. Those powers were restricted to EXTERNAL OBJECTS, which are war,(only by consent of the Senate), peace, foreign affairs, trade, and the defense of the borders.
+James Fisher I agree to a certain extent but how do you explain article 1 section 8? Not to mention the supremacy clause itself. And obviously this analogy doesn't count for the other 37 states that joined the nation following the Constitution, at least that line of argument.
But if its we the people through our Representation and the SCOTUS who defines whats Constitutional then there is no breaking of any Constitutional law. Only according to your interpretations and what you believe in original intent. What makes the system so brilliant, evil, genius and dysfunctional is that the words themselves become carriers of flexibility and limitations all at once. So I vehemently disagree and agree with you!
NO wrong the constitution is clear the state nor th3 federal government have the right to pass laws that goes against the constitution. Tje constitution is the law of the lamd. All atate legislatures governors presidents and members of Congress are bound by the constitution.
All members of government are ordinary people like you and mean. None of them have power and authority over us. The constitution tells the fedral and state governments whqg they can or cant do
So stop trying to interpret the meaning of the constitution to your authoritarianism view points. The cons was put in place to protect our rights and limit the power of the government fedral and state.
I got a 5 on AP Gov. Forgot to thank you until now. Thanks!
can you do interest groups, social welfare, political parties ,voting videos?
Alright, so I have a question guys: How does Article VI resolve disputes between the federal government and state government?
Yes
Through supreme court decisions?
The Constitution wins. Federal laws and treaties made in pursuance of it win. State laws made in conflict with it do not win. Federal laws and treaties made in conflict with it do not win.
Well according to modern US courts it resolves it because the 10th amendment really doesn’t mean anything. In their reading the 10th amendment was pointless padding added to the constitution and has no force of law even though it’s part of the constitution
Remember, the Founding Fathers were a diverse group. Some of them probably wanted a very strong central government (hmm, Federalists) while others maybe less so. That's why it's so hard to give the Constitution such a strict historical reading. (I'm enjoying this debate. I may disagree with you, but you come at it with an honest disagreement of opinions, without hyperbole.)
It becomes easier when you focus on the difference between the opinions they each separately or collectively held, the back and forth discussions and drafts they may have considered, and the final product, to which they signed their names. They were diverse. The Constitution is not.
The federalists were the faction who actually wrote and pushed through the US Constitution.
frankly i didnt find your comment amusing, you comment at least 50 times on his videos i hate every one of your comments id like you to stop commenting because no one cares about your comment. so shut up keep your bald head and your comments to ur self
Very recently, a Representative from Texas introduced House Bill 948, which would ban abortions in Texas at any stage. In the bill itself, it proposes that the bill would take precedence over federal law. THIS is why I looked up the Supremacy law in the first place. I know Texas has been fighting abortion law for a while. I just cannot see why anyone has not mentioned the Supremacy Clause in regards to this bill. Am I missing something, or is this bill not Unconstitutional at its core?
This is why I'm on this video now. Because that law just passed in texas, 4 years later
Got a question. On Friday 6-26-15 the US Supreme court ruled that this same sex marriage is now law of the land in all 50 states. Why don't the people of each of their state vote on this? Isn't this taking the power away from the people? Why does the Supreme Court have the power and authority to do this? Isn't this unconstitutional? Is the Supremacy Clause have something to do with this?
Dexter001 If a state law violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause then it's unconstitutional. Just like in Brown v Board of Ed. You don't get to vote on segregation or if women should vote or if blue eyed people can get married. Maybe this new video will help..... ua-cam.com/video/yxtU_HZnYW0/v-deo.html
Keith Hughes Thanks for responding. Another question can this kind of marriage (SSM) get overturned of banned in the future or can it be challenged? Also is not Aids or some sexual diseases come into play? reason because some states have incest laws to prohibit siblings to marrying. Did WATCH the video link, Thanks!!!
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) States make many laws that are contrary to the constitution and or Supreme Court case law, one for instance is the stop and frisk Law.
+Keith Hughes (HipHughes) Keep up the good work, don't allow these UA-cam cowards to deter You.
Sadly, the part 1 of 14th amendment as been grossly and deliberately misinterpreted and misapplied, a separate discussion. Defining marriage and permitting nationwide abortion are not powers delegated to the federal government.Thus, per the 10th Amendment, powers not specifically delegated by the states to the federal government reside with the States and the People alone. This is so fundamental, and yet modern living constitutionalists and judicial revisionists refuse to honor this foundational principle. Tragic.
i woned to tell you wen you are looking at the camra you start to blink a lot so maby you shoud only blink ones becus it probly scars people wen you do that.
Your comment and particularly its spelling made my blinking problem worse. Thank you for the constructive criticism. I have an appointment with a blinking therapist on Monday.
Keith Hughes lol your awesome!!!!
Keith Hughes
Keith Hughes lmao! ! ! !
So who decides what it means. You or the courts?
But the interpretations you speak so absolutely about are just that, interpretations. We the people in the end (I am agreeing with you!) hold the power, we hold it through our voices, our feet and through our interpretations of words which are very interpretable to begin with. If they wanted a strict intentionalist reading they would of put in their rationals and mindset. But they didn't. I think on purpose... to allow for our funky multi century ideological bickering to occur...
3 is getting cut right now! short and sweet
I have a question. I know that the Supremacy Clause means that federal law trumps state law. But where does the 10th Amendment come in to play?
I have been countering some of your points (all well-intended and with an air of kindness and respect) in this thread, but would like to point out that in the ACTUAL end, it is the States who triumph - of course you have to get 3/4ths of them to agree, but the States themselves (who gave birth to the Constitution and the Federal government) hold the ultimate authority.
But... in all cases in recent time until current, you are totally right, the Feds win, we lose.
Freedom for the few..
:)
The Supremacy Clause only applies to the laws enumerated in the Constitution. If it's not in the Constitution, there is no supremacy.
Awesome work! Thank you.
April 9th 2024 in South Dakota. There is Freedom RINGING!
A simbiant relationship without one the other falls
No problem with that! And I like your videos. Thanks for giving me a legal education at my advanced age.
In the end, the Feds triumph. The complexity is in how the Feds regulate pot... which is in the interstate commerce clause. If the Supreme court found the way the Feds regulate pot was unconstitutional then they could not trump state law but for the moment, the court recognizes the Feds ability to regulate. And Washington state is not breaking the law as much as dancing within some grey areas of Federalism. If they made it legal to leave the state with it, perhaps that would be more blatant.
Federalism is just a sham if the federal government always triumphs even in areas where it has not been delegated power under the constitution.
It’s simply a non sequitur to say that powers are reserved to the states as they are in the 10th amendment but can also be overruled by the federal government
I get your point but come on, Alabama lynched human beings and denied a whole class of people from participating in society. And the intention of the fourth was not for the state but for the Feds only. I believe people are good to but we need a minimum level of standards when it comes to equity and due process. I enjoy our debates by the way... Im off to the 3rd amendment. talk tomorrow!
good video. thank you
I have a Social Studies' Teacher warm fuzzy. but not in a creepy way.
😂 They all have taken oaths and some break the oaths and have NO CLUE about the possibility of getting arrested for the violation of human rights of others.
Great video
It looks like everything else is a restriction on federal
Government..
Excess for that big whoops in the middle lol
Obviously, you can’t read, or you simply ignore the qualifying phrase ... “which shall be made in pursuance thereof ...” In other words, for a federal law to be supreme to a state law, it must involve one of the specific powers granted to the federal government by the states. Remember, the states created the federal government, not the other way around. Not every federal law is supreme to state laws, and when they’re not, the states can tell the Feds to pound sand.
Well it should be said that he’s hardly the only one. While you are in my reading of the constitution entirely correct, somehow the entire US legal system and government have gotten away with ignoring this for over 150 years.
But nothing in the constitution says we must be dictated by their intentions. I don't care what the intentions are of the people who wrote the directions to Monopoly, Ill just use the words in the rules. And different people will have different readings and together we will bang it out within the system we have constructed. You know a lot of those enlightened founders owned human beings and had terrible thoughts about how life worked. so Id rather just honor the words than their intentions. :)
Yes he did. But the Bill of Rights was included.
The original intent of the Fourth Amendment is to protect you from an aggressive state.
I believe that people are generally good and mean well, if you do, then you should trust them to learn and grow - not be coddled and led through life like children.
You bring up Alabama, I bring up the modern Police State of the Federal Government.. Patriot Act, NDA, wiretaps, NSA, etc.
I totally agree.
Thanks
I guess I just am baffled that people won't agree when the intentions were for freedom, self-rule, and a limited fed gov.
Yeah, a lot of those founders owned human beings - as did every people on the planet at one time or another. We also fought a war and passed Amendments over that issue.
Honoring words:
"First do no harm"
Hey! They didn't say no "little" harm, so then we can do "little" harms!
Oh! They only said First! So secondly we can do harm!
This is a very scary nihilistic stuff.
Most people get the "Supremacy Clause" wrong. Here's a proper look at it's meaning: ua-cam.com/video/a7I3fJfm-GQ/v-deo.html
u have a very bob dylan blonde on blonde album cover wild hair doo in this one
The states decide what is not specifically given to the Federal government. If there is a question, then it goes to the States.
Just because I don't want 9 people in black robes deciding what should be law for everyone in the nation does not mean I don't want law!
:)
Excellent job!
But.. (haha) the "supremacy clause" is bound by the previous Articles, which delegated the specific and enumerated (which are limited!) powers to the Congress, Executive, and the Supreme Court. Any power not listed in these previous Articles are not, repeat, NOT granted to the Federal government and, as stated in the 10th Amendment, are reserved to the States, or the people.
So, the "supremacy clause" means the Fed Gov is ONLY supreme in those limited areas and no others.
Word!
Like your hair Hughes and those glasses are so sexy!
😳🤭😐
you're telling me you're NOT Patton Oswalt?????!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks friend, great primer, very much appreciated.
good
You say these words, "original intent" - uh, what other intent would there be?
The only way to change the Constitution is to amend it, not to appoint sympathetic justices who will make up pretzle-logic interpretations. Amending is hard (states have power!) so of course those who wish to cheat will cheat!
I can't get a car loan and not pay then argue that the holder of a contract is a believer in "original intent" and I interpret that to be giving me a free car. It's just rationally unsound.
Who interpreted these laws. When Intead that it looks like it’s reiterating protection of civilian rights... that the government has to follow the law... And treaties! Who cares about the federal government this America which is given power by the people... don’t known though...
where in the Constitution does it state that the States are sovereign? where does it say the judges shall have absolute immunity? answer it does not, english common law does.
It doesn’t say it explicitly but it implies it in referring to the states as plural rather than as simply parts of the United States
and also in the 10th amendment by reserving powers to the states, and saying that the powers of the federal government are merely “delegated” rather than inherent. In other words the sovereign states have delegated those powers to their agent the federal government.
After the constitution was written its primary author James Madison is also very explicit in describing the states as sovereign and even able to nullify federal law they deem unconstitutional. James Madison says he sings in the Virginia resolutions.
@@walterbailey2950 as long as the States derive their authority from God, they shall remain sovereign. that is what sovereign means and everyone knows that fact. Divine right of States.
@@johnhumphrey9953 Madison’s theory was a little different. He and his colleagues were republicans not theocrats.
The American republican idea is that sovereignty ultimately derives from the people and is expressed through the states primarily as their representatives.
@@walterbailey2950 wrong, it comes from English Common Law. if the states derived their authority from the people, the states could not be sovereign by definition.
POG
i see you everywhere for schoo stuff
lucky you 😪😪😪😪
Part II as explained in video is VERY misleading and buys into the mistaken notion that federal laws trump State laws. Not true. If you read the relevant Federalist papers, the key to fully understanding Part II are the words "which shall be made in pursuance thereof". Slowly read Part II again. What the founders said is that all powers specifically/expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitutition, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, cannot be usurped by the individual States. But, as importantly, and in conjunction with Amendments 9 and 10, all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or not specifically/expressly prohibited to the States, devolve upon the States or the People, and that, therefore, the federal government may not usurp those State powers, whether those powers are expressed or implied. In effect then, fed exercise of authority is strictly limited to only those powers granted to it by the States when the Constitution was ratified, and State exercise of authority is strictly limited to all other powers, whether expressed or implied and not specifically denied to the States in the Constitution. In short, both the feds and teh States must operate within the constraints laid out in the Constitution. It's really that simple, and yet this part of Art VI is constantly misinterpreted.
Jim Delaney one problem is that the Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment and therefore your argument at a legal level is invalid.
@@stratagama As I recall, the founders viewed the final arbiters as the People --not the "supreme" court. So long as SCOTUS remains within its Art III parameters, their interpretation is supreme Art III powers are very specific. Today we are taught to always defer to Supreme Court rulings/opinions/judgements in ALL matters. Doing so is the very definition of tyranny. Read the relevant Federalist Papers. Not rocket science.
Federalist papers are legally speaking irrelevant the opinions of people dead for 200 years is also irrelevant. if they are disgusted with the society we have created then I say GOOD,
@@stratagama The basis of our law is the Constitution. To understand what the framers and ratifiers had in mind as to original meaning and intent, the Federalist Papers, State ratifying documents (where they exist) and memos penned by the founders are crucial. Again, the Supreme Court is supreme only in areas specifically described in Art III. Sadly, most law students are taught that case law alone, whether it be revisionist or otherwise completely in violation of original meaning and intent, is the supreme law of the land. Absolutely not so. If that were true, why bother having a Constitution at all. Just delegate total power in all matters to SCOTUS.
YES!! SUPREMACY!!!!!!
...this might be good to learn, after some lessons on territorial jurisdiction(s), smh
500 Broken Native American Treaties
u talked too fast!!!!!!
+Sri Kanipakala You could download it, put it in an editor and slow up the track.
lol
#jennaamesonwhisyourdaxdy
firsties.
That pesky constitution