ITs all good though, not whinging at all cause it could be worse I suppose

Ive learned to accept my 'place' as a christian in the modern culture,,,

I respect your right, admire your faith.

My point was EXACTLY the point you made! Too many things are force fed to us in the general public, and more "laws" are created to allow or disallow them by congressional or supreme court whim!

I don't agree with gay marriage, but if two adults want to partner up, more power to them, but in the presence of my family or children at home is a violation of my rights.... the ones that are ignored by "political correctness".

You see, we agree, to a point. I don't want johovahs witness at my door.... my PRIVATE door, but if they are at the park I have the choice of staying or moving on. Public function/assembly is a right under the constitution, but what I can see and hear from my home is a different matter.

yeah,

jrbogie,

I was referring to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution outlining "Supremacy of National Law".

I certainly misspoke if there is a Federal Law making the death penalty mandatory. Do you happen to know where I could find it?

I don't want to wait to read it until it's kicked out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, or until the states that are not complying are brought to task.

State law supercedes federal law (In most cases). Gov't has been challenging that for years! The Patriot Act (thanks to GW) is the basis they are using now to impose jurisdiction over state law.

Look at Calif marijuana laws! Because it is legaly perscribed in CA, they allow growers, under strict STATE guidelines and tax laws, to produce, harvest, and sell. There are of course those who "bend" those laws a bit. The Feds are doing all they can to punish CA and the harvesters, but they have no power to do so. They then attack the individual growers/vendors with any little "fudge" away from the state statutes or tax laws, under a federal mandate.

The Law.....

Federal System

Federalism, the federal system, is a political system in which ultimate authority is shared between a central government and state or local governments. Each level of government has sovereignty in some areas. Each area of government has its own agencies and officials that directly affect the citizens. There are some powers that the federal government has, like the power to declare war, that the state governments do not have. And, there are powers that the states have, like the power to regulate marriage and divorce laws, that the federal government does not have. However, the supremacy clause, Article VI of the US Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and treaties of the United States are superior to state and local laws and ordinances. That means that state and local governments cannot pass laws that usurp the powers of the federal government or the Constitution.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_has_more_power_in_a_federal_system_the_states_or_the_government#ixzz1amjakVO0

You’ve hit the nail on the head, as it’s issues like medical marijuana that make Article VI murky to a lot of people, in that it would seem as though these States are defying Federal laws.

Whether this is the case or not is 100% dependent on whether or not the Federal laws pertaining to marijuana, and many other issues, are Constitutional or not. The States that have adopted legalization of medical marijuana do not believe the Federal laws are constitutional, and therefore are not legitimate laws at all, therefore they do not consider themselves as trying to supersede Federal laws, but simply making legislation on issues that the Constitution gives them the right to discern for themselves.
This will take years if not decades to work itself out in the Supreme Court.

I guess we are branching off a bit from the topic, so to bring it back on track…in my opinion, the fact that Article VI has never been amended to include a religious party in this pecking order, means that we have indeed done a good job of keeping any set of religious ideals from forming the principal operation of our country. I think we can all agree that this was the main point made by the founding fathers… providing for religious freedom, while keeping any one religion from forcing its laws and policies on the country as a whole.

I'm glad your statement made me revisit this subject.

I'm not that familiar with these imprisonments. Are the cases that are prosecuted, cases where multiple "legal marriages" are concerned or are they also convicting church made marriages?

If they are prosecuting church made marriages I would have to disagree with that. I'm not saying I agree with the prosecution of multiple "legal marriage" either, except to the tune that as of right now they are illegal, and therefore laws are being broken. If they believe strongly enough in the marriages being "legal" they need to keep fighting to change it through legal channels.

I believe this is really the issue, as many would see the legalization of multiple marriages as a religious party dictating a law…which crosses a line. I think most of us would agree…especially with the example of most Middle Eastern countries as a warning…that the main reason behind separation of church and state is to insure that no one religion dictates the laws of our country…thus forcing their beliefs on the general population through legal measures.

Personally I’m not really sure how I would feel about multiple marriages being legally accepted. I’ve not made the effort to fully study the ramifications, so have no right to an opinion. I do, however understand the principal resistance given it so far, and can’t say that I fully disagree right now.

I will add that I view prosecuting anyone that chooses to practice the religious principle of multiple marriages within the confines of their own church and homes would compare to prosecuting any single mother whose baby’s father is in the picture, but not legally married. Since the only differing denominator is religious preference…this IS by definition, religious persecution.

I was trying to add this to my previous reply and mussed it up....

As far as the link you provided...I do not know Mr.V or what his opinion is based on, but think he should read the Constitution and Bill of Rights to see where he is mistaken.

I stand by my statement that Federal law comes before State law because it's what is how it is written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If Mr.V can show me where the Constitution was amended, thus reversing it, I would be more than happy to change my thinking.

As I said in my earlier comments in this post, the confusion on this is in what the Federal Government has the right to pass laws on...and what they do not.

The Constitution states clearly (some think not so clearly) what issues the Federal Government has the right to legislate and all else is left to the discrepancy of the individual States. The Federal Government overreaching and writing laws it has no right to makes it seem as if States go against Federal laws.

can you provide the article and section or the amendment that makes it clear to you in the constitution "what issues the federal government has the right to legislate"? i see no referance, for instance, in the constitution regarding aircraft and pilots yet the federal aviation exists to legislate aviation matters. your reading of the constitution is very flawed imo. state and local law quite often exceeds the boundaries of federal law. for instance, there is no federal law restricting night landings at aspen airport but there is a city ordinance barring such. land at aspen at night and the crew will be arrested by aspen police yet they've broken no federal law or regulation.

the supremacy clause merely states that federal laws are applicable regardless of any state law. "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." the law in california allows the possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes yet such posission or use is still against federal drug laws. buy marijuana in california for medicinal use and you can be arrested by the dea and prosecuted in federal court then sent to federal prison. all the time you complied with california law.



nowhere is a law making the death penalty mandatory. the death penalty is an option in capital crimes and treason against the u.s. government. tim mcveigh was tried, convicted, sentenced and executed by the federal government.



not sure what you're talking about here. i know of no challenge presently before the supreme court regarding either federal or state death warrants. nothing in the constitution prohibits the death penalty per say, for either the states or the federal government.

The provisions ARE the entire Constitution of the United States...not just an article or two.

The Federal Governent is in charge of the laws pertaining to the provisions of the Constitution and all esle is left to the States to govern. I'm sure there are online verstions availabel, otherwise I would have to scan in the whole Constitution and email it to you.



Of course there are no specific references in the Constitution regarding issues that are regulated by individual States. These are things that are outlined in individual State Constitutions. The Federal Constitution was written for the express purpose of outlining what the Federal Government IS allowed control…and not what it is NOT allowed to control. The Supreme Court's job would be much simplified if they had…though I don’t imagine there would have been enough trees to get that job done. Haha.

As we continue back and forth, I'm beginning to suspect that we are not butting heads so much as talking about two different things.

Correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, but you may be referring more to the fact that States have precedence over all legislation that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the right to restrict….which is supposed to be most everything. Therefore States have the right to make laws that the Federal Government does not have the right to interfere with or pass laws of their own on the issue…if that’s what you mean by precedence then I quite agree.

I am using the word precedence to describe which law prevails when State law and Federal law butt heads. Obviously a State can pass whatever law it wants to, but will end up being brought to task in the Supreme Court if it infringes on existing Federal mandates. The only way the Supreme Court will find for the State law over the Federal law is if it is ruled as not offsetting the purpose of the Federal law or if the Federal law it contradicts is deemed Unconstitutional.

This is Article VI, Clause 2 of The United States Constitution:

“Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

There is a lot of assumption that plays into what people believe…most people believe that there is a Federal law that sets the legal drinking age at 21. Since there were many States that held the legal drinking age at 18, people assumed the State law outweighed the Federal law on the matter…which is not the case at all.

It seems that the Federal Government goes out of its way to make people think they hold all the cards. There is no Federal Drinking Age in any law in existance...and the Federal Government has NO Constitutional right to enact one. That being the case, here is what they do…

From Chapter 1, Title 23 of the U.S. Code…

Ҥ 158. NATIONAL MINIMUM DRINKING AGE

(a) Withholding of Funds for Noncompliance.—

(1) In general.— The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104 (b)(1), 104 (b)(3), and 104 (b)(4) of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.

(2) State grandfather law as complying.— If, before the later of
(A) October 1, 1986, or
(B) the tenth day following the last day of the first session the legislature of a State convenes after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State has in effect a law which makes unlawful the purchase and public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than 21 years of age (other than any person who is 18 years of age or older on the day preceding the effective date of such law and at such time could lawfully purchase or publicly possess any alcoholic beverage in such State), such State shall be deemed to be in compliance with paragraph (1) in each fiscal year in which such law is in effect.
(b) Effect of Withholding of Funds.— No funds withheld under this section from apportionment to any State after September 30, 1988, shall be available for apportionment to that State.
(c) Alcoholic Beverage Defined.— As used in this section, the term “alcoholic beverage” means—
(1) beer as defined in section 5052(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
(2) wine of not less than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol by volume, or
(3) distilled spirits as defined in section 5002(a)(8) of such Code"

So, as you can see that what people think is a Federal Drinking Age, is actually a bribe to force States into enacting drinking legislation of their own that comply with Federal wishes. The books are full of these kind of underhanded controls, and are all too often taken to be actual Federal laws. The Federal Government has a lot fewer laws than most would expect…but what they do actually legislate, they have the authority to uphold.

See what I mean about our misundertanding one another and talking about two different things?

What you wrote is exactly what I've believed I was trying to convince you of all along. No, California law cannot overule Federal law...one is still held to the Federal law.

One step further though, until the time comes that California convinces the Supreme Court that the Federal law is unconstitutional, California is breaking Federal laws by not enforcing the Federal law.

I lost a quote somewhere, but wanted to respond to you stating that there was no Federal mandate for the death penalty.

I agree and never thought there was. If a State law were to sepercede Federal law regarding it...there would have to be a Federal law pertaining to it to start with...and I thought that by your stating that State law supercedes in death penalty cases, that you were saying there was a Federal law concerning it.

This is another example of our misunderstanding. I do not use the word supercede unless there is something TO supercede. That's just how I was taught the meaning of the word. You use it differently. For instance I would not say that there is a winner in a one man race...as there was no one to overcome.





No, my point there was that if there were conflicting law between State and Federal legislation regarding the death penalty, there would be a Supreme Court Case over it, as the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to legislate it.

hell, i've three different online versions with legal notations and case history notes in my list of favorites. "the whole constitution" as you put it, is only two pages long. i've made it a forth of july tradition of mine for more than a quarter century to read the damn thing begining at "we the people" all the way through the 27th amendment. takes me all of about a half hour. either you can or cannot point to a section of the constitution that will substantiate your claims about what the federal government is empowered and forbidden to do and then we can discuss your claim in that context. short of you doing that, i'll simply assume you've not read it yourself.





you really haven't read the constitution have you? tell me this. can a state decide today that it will begin to issue pilot certificates that would allow people to fly in the airspace over that state WITHOUT a faa pilot certificate? if what you say is true, a state's constitution could claim the right of control over it's own airspace without federal intervention.



no, in this the tenth amendment is quite clear:

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

as regards laws this simply means that if the federal government has not made a law governing a particular topic, the states are free to do so AS LONG AS SUCH LAWS COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.



not so in the least, but perhaps you can cite case history that will convince me.



i fail to understand that what people think or assume has anything whatsoever to do with the constitution or the law. and i sure don't see what all this has to do with article six clause two.

Since the above quote is exactly what I have been saying myself, I have to assume that we have indeed misunderstood one another and actually agree in our interpretations of the Constitution.

As we agree, I see no reason to continue a disagreement, and as all other arguments fall within the parameters of the original disagreement, they are by default moot.

And yes, as Constitutional law was my course study for 3 years, I have indeed read the Constitution. I wish to apologize if the comment that I have probably not read it was in retaliation for my offer to scan you a copy. I gladly pocket your insult, but wish to extend and apology to you as I meant no barb by my comment and had no more knowledge of your access to a copy than you would have of my educational background of the subject matter.

Have a pleasant Sunday.

hmmmmm. i'm not so sure. you've talked about the ENTIRE constitution here. has anyone ever interpreted the entire constitution? i can't think of a case frankly. some portions of the constitution apply in some cases, others in other cases.



of course how i interpret sections of the constitution or how you intepret those sections are moot as the law goes. only the federal courts have the power to interpret. but moot is what a forum like this is all about is it not? at any rate, i think we're far from agreeing on how the constitution has been interpreted by federal judges and justices.



i'd never have questioned your educational background. and of course my credentials in law are of little substance here. it's a dating site for crying out loud. lol.

Indeed! Haha!

There is only one thing that gets me truly upset regarding the Constitution...and that is people who don't care enough to give it any thought at all.

So, even if we have had trouble understanding each other...which sometimes happens, I am glad to know there are still people who give their attention to it. I'm glad you give it the merit it deserves.

On Separation of church and state:


Hey, get your church out of my state!

I feel that way myself about most of them.

kind words. it is good to discuss the constitution i think. the more we kick it around the better we all understand it.