The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause”.
By Publius Huldah
Art.VI, clause 2 says:
“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…”
That tells us:
1. Only THREE things are eligible to comprise the “supreme Law of the Land”: The Constitution, Acts of Congress, and Treaties. Supreme Court opinions are not included! Supreme Court opinions aren’t even “law” [contrary to what lawyers were told in law school] – they are merely opinions on the law suits or proceedings before the court.
2. Furthermore, Acts of Congress must be made pursuant to Authority granted to Congress by the Constitution before they qualify as part of the “supreme Law”. If Acts of Congress are not authorized by the Constitution, the acts are mere usurpations and must be treated as such. See: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/…/nullification-smacki…/
3. Treaties must likewise be made under the Authority of the United States before they qualify as part of the “supreme Law”. From where do the President and the Senate obtain their Authority? From the Constitution. The Constitution must specifically authorize the national government to act in an area before they may lawfully make a treaty addressing the object. The national government may not circumvent the limitations imposed by the enumerated powers to do by treaty what they may not lawfully do pursuant to the enumerated powers. E.g., our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/…/treaty-making-powers…/
The Supreme Court’s opinion in the homosexual marriage cases was a grotesque usurpation of powers not delegated. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/…/searching-for-marria…/ And the opinion of these FIVE (5) morally degenerate lawyers is not “law” in any sense of the word. Only Congress is authorized to make “law” (Art. I, Sec. 1).
So County Clerk Kim Davis is a Heroine of the Republic for standing up to Tyranny. Like Rosa Parks.
Share this:
37 Comments »
Leave a comment
PUBLIUS HULDAH
Publius-Huldah's Blog 
Excellent. Great site should be more like yours.
Explication is spot on!!
Restore Our Republic and eradicate theses parasite banker’s, thieves, pirates, leeches from our Lands
They had made us dead entity, CORPORATE, bonded, UNITED STATES, 14TH AMENDMENT, SLAVEZ _TO THIER TYRANNY, warmongering & plundering. Circus script Federal reserve fraud notes and their corrupt Congress mobsters who dont give a F about The People.
LikeLike
thank you! But beware of that “corporation” theory: Go HERE https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/daily-commentary/
and scroll down to The U.S. government is NOT a Corporation!
On the 14th amendment, see the entries under https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/14th-amendment/
Oh yes, Congress and President Wilson violated our Constitution when they passed the Federal reserve Act of 1913. disgraceful.
LikeLike
What about freedom of association?
LikeLike
What is your question about it?
LikeLike
[…] « Previous | Next » […]
LikeLike
Pingback by Exposing the scam in the push for an Art. V Convention | TennesseeWatchman.com Liberty News | November 12, 2015 |
I’m not an attorney or profess to know much about the Laws of this Country, let alone the laws of each individual state. But, it seems to me that a lot of people have committed grievous errors in the case of the County Clerk in Kentucky who would not issue a marriage license to a gay couple. These being; The people or person who thought a law had been violated. The people or person who went to a judge to get a warrant. The people or person who served the warrant. The judge who issued the warrant. And numerous others I’m sure.
The 4th Amendment is quit clear that in order for a warrant to be issued several things must be in order. First, there must be probable cause. Second, there must be an oath or affirmation from a person stating, under penalty of perjury, that the facts are true. Third, the oath or affirmation must accompany the warrant, and lastly, the person or things must be clearly described. If any one of these items are missing then one would assume that the warrant is defective.
This process has to go through several hands and in my book, each must make sure that all the elements are there before the warrant is served. If a warrant is defective then all who touch it must bear the responsibilities. Lack of Mens Rea would not be a valid defense cause all of law enforcement must take an oath to support the Constitutions (State and Federal). I won’t even address the requirements of the 5th and 6th Amendments. Am I wrong? If so, please enlighten.
LikeLike
Headed out for an event tonight – will answer later. But re arrests for criminal offenses, what you say is basically correct.
LikeLike
Kim Davis was not put in jail b/c of a “crime” for which she was “arrested”. Her’s is not a criminal case – she was sued in a civil action under the federal civil rights act.
She was jailed b/c the judge in her civil case held her in contempt – she violated a court order [apparently to issue licenses to homosexuals desiring to “marry”]. She refused to comply and the judge held her “in contempt of court” and ordered her jailed.
Here is the Press Release from her law Firm: http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1595
LikeLike
“The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed.”
Judge David L. Bunning, US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
internet source: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/09/08/natural-law-and-this-courts-authority/
NPR just this moment announced Kim Davis has been released from jail.
LikeLike
Bunning is an ass. A complete ass.
LikeLike
sounds like you might know him personally… I’d say he’s misguided, maybe he needs your assistance. He was very young when appointed, and inexperience is a risk. I’m sure he will change with time, and hopefully wisdom prevails :^)
Smile and do well at your event!
LikeLike
No, I don’t know Bunning. I called him an “ass” b/c
1. Charles Dickens said, If the law says that, then “the Law is an ass”.
2. At the Nuremburg war crimes trials, defendants asserted this defense: “I was following German law” or “I was following orders.” The Judges rejected that defense: They judged Defendants by the Natural Law – WE ALL KNOW THAT WHAT THE NAZIS DID WAS MORALLY WRONG. The natural law was placed ABOVE German “law”, which was seen as an aberration.
3. Bunning is saying that THE PERSONAL OPINIONS OF THE SCOTUS JUDGES TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE NATURAL LAW!
LikeLike
I have wanted to run something by you.
The Senate passed the Corker bill which negated their rightful authority to ratify or reject this treaty with Iran. For some weird reason, they made it virtually impossible to stop Obama’s agreement. Here are my thoughts: 1. You cannot sidestep the Constitution by calling a treaty a “Presidential Agreement”. 2. The Senate cannot sidestep the Constitution by submitting to the pressure of this deal not being called a treaty and pass this bill so that they will appear to have some say in the matter, as opposed to no say whatsoever. 3. So, the Corker bill is unconstitutional and should be treated likewise. The Senate does not have the authority to pass a bill that lowers the bar for ratification of a treaty, no matter what it is called. The legislature cannot alter the Constitution by passing laws, just as SCOTUS cannot alter the Constitution by issuing opinions – legally. So, if those in the Senate with a little backbone really wanted to do something to stop the deal with Iran, they are on legal and Constitutional footing to insist on the normal ratification process. It does not matter that the Corker bill was passed.
Of course, this is like peeing into the wind, they are mostly inept and corrupt and even if they thought this through, would not act upon it to help save parts of the world from the madmen in Iran.
LikeLike
BRAVO! Every word you said is pure TRUTH.
Dr. Alan Keyes just wrote a column on this: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/keyes/150907 He is brilliant, as always.
LikeLike
I am sending this reply by my cousin who is a PHD and this delves into things more deeply than I might
[New post] The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause”.
Actions Pete Hennessey 7:48 PM To: Dick Trowbridge Cc: Albert/Chris Shaw, Annie Connors-Buckley, Barb Wright, Bill Trowbridge, Bill/fran Craig, Bob Girard, Bradley Rogers, Brandon DeLorenzo, Carolyn Butler, Charlene Helfrich, Christine Trowbridge, customerservice@gbtv.com, David and Pam Trowbridge, Della/Denny Holdread, Dennis Decker, Ellen Hennessey, Eric Trowbridge, Elli Strukel, Eric Trowbridge, Gail O’Brien, Geri Moran, jackiewalorski@gmail.com, Jane/Ron Humbarger/Ciitaddine, Janet/Rod Fergison, Jean Guoin, Jeff Cain, John Altum, Kathy Laughlin, Lanette & Leon Radomile, Larry Lupear, Larry Goodknight, Larry Todt, Linda Lupear, Linda Trowbridge, Lucinda Wagler, Mike/Deb Shutta, Nancy Alig, Nancy/Rich Adams, NRA-ILA_Alerts NRA, Randy Goodin, Rich Trowbridge, Richard Herath, Richard Wright, Ron Blake, Ron Silc, Scott and Candy Jones, Stan & Linda Skinner, Steve Price, Steve Stump, Suzie Chilberg
Please forgive me for the “reply all,” as some of you may not know me (Just The Facts, Ma’am).
But
1. I hope the author of this blog is a legal or constitutional authority.
2. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall has highjacked the Constitution and arrogated to the Court the right to RULE, not just bloviate, on the constitutionality of congressional and executive acts.
3. President Thomas Jefferson has acquiesced to this usurpation of powers, because of course to a properly trained lawyer is makes sense that someone would have the final word. He and Reagan are my favorite presidents, but I lay the blame on him for this one.
4. I hope the author of this blog will follow up with actual case histories, besides Marbury v. Madison which is the only one I know of, to explain where and how the mantle of “supreme law of the land” was bestowed upon Supreme Court decisions, and if, where and how that concept was challenged and upheld.
5. Likewise for a discussion of whether the enumerated powers apply both to Congress and the executive, or just to Congress, or both or neither one. Article 1 section 8 begins with”The Congress shall have Power to…” and the Bill of Rights begins with “Congress shall make no law…” Article 2 does NOT begin with “the president shall have the power to…” and does NOT specify any presidential powers beyond (1) being commander-in-chief, (2) negotiating treaties, (3) appointing certain officials, (4) running departments created by Congress, (5) giving Congress a report on the state of the union, (6) adjourn or call Congress into session, and (7) “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” NOTHING about specifying or limiting his “executive powers.” You can certainly imply that the same enumeration that applied to Congress also applies to the executive, but it does not say so explicitly.
6. Likewise for actual case histories to explain how the “enumerated powers,” implied but not explicitly identified as such in Articles 1 and 2, are to be reconciled with the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Certainly 0bama has been acting as if he thinks that parts of the Constitution or court decisions which he does not like do not apply to him. I wonder if we would be upset if we saw a President Trump (for example) act the same way, or if we saw any President veto bills as clearly unconstitutional simply because they violate the enumerated powers clause, irrespective of Supreme Court decisions that others may think are relevant.
Cheers, Peter
LikeLike
Peter! What a bizarre comment.
Marbury v. Madison says something very different from what you say: Actually, Marbury says that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and an Act of Congress, SCOTUS must side with the Constitution. Hamilton said the same thing during 1788 in Federalist No. 78.
Have you ever heard of “checks & balances”? The federal courts have a “check” on Congress – the power to declare unconstitutional Acts of Congress which violate the Constitution. THAT is one of the ways The People were to be protected from unconstitutional acts of Congress.
Congress has a “check” on the federal courts: The power to impeach & remove federal judges who usurp powers, etc. See Federalist No. 81 (8th para).
Each Branch has “checks” on the other Branches.
You don’t know what you are talking about when you accuse Jefferson in acquiescing in judicial usurpations. It is wicked of you.
About 100 years ago, Charles Evans Hughes (who became Chief Justice of SCOTUS) said “the Constitution means what the judges say it means” [I’m paraphrasing from memory]. Lazy & ignorant Americans believed it and repeated it. Wicked Americans, who had no understanding of any of it, repeated it. And so it became the prevailing dogma of the Land – that IS what is taught in law schools. And law students, with their minds like blank sheets of paper, heard it and let it be printed on what passes for “brains” in their heads.
The powers delegated to the President in the Constitution are limited and defined: See https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/the-presidents-enumerated-powers-rulemaking-by-executive-agencies-executive-orders/
Tell me, Peter: Were you totally sober when you drafted your comment?
And be sure to send my Reply to those on your email list and to your Ph.D. relation.
LikeLike
“Actually, Marbury says that when there is a conflict between the Constitution and an Act of Congress, SCOTUS must side with the Constitution. Hamilton said the same thing during 1788 in Federalist No. 78.”
That seems like a contradiction. Congress must ‘side with the Constitution’. That’s the only ‘side’ considering Section 2 of Article 6. Is it simply redundant?
I’ve heard the same thing said of Marbury v. Madison, that SCOTUS assumed new powers not IAW constitutional authority, rather by creating a legal doctrine. All three branches are responsible to uphold the Constitution. The way I see it, no branch has authority over the other, the Constitution creates them as lateral entities with different tools to provide a system of ‘turnpikes’ to block unconstitutional law or regulate law to ensure it is pursuant to the Constitution.
Currently, by assent, the three branches actually trade powers between them, which of course is unconstitutional. Look how George Bush Jr was ‘elected’. But the ‘wicked, lazy & ignorant Americans’ don’t notice the foul — perhaps it’s apathy.
My question is:
How subjective is the Constitution? Look at the disagreements even in the 5/4 splits. Is the difference in precedent or is it in understanding the words of the Constitution? The text speaks for itself.
LikeLike
Not sure I understand your concern. Congress makes lots of laws. But ONLY those which are made pursuant to the Constitution – which are authorized by the Constitution – qualify as part of the supreme Law of the Land. READ the paper I linked to for this point in my Post – I go into detail about “in Pursuance thereof” – citing Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Papers.
So when Congress makes a law which is not authorized by The Constitution, it is the DUTY of federal courts to declare the pretended law unconstitutional [if the law comes before the Court in a lawsuit – as with, e.g., obamacare]. THAT is what Marbury stands for.
The 3 Branches have their own specific duties and responsibilities and separate spheres of operation. No Branch is subordinate to any other Branch. But each Branch has the power to “check” unconstitutional acts of the other Branches. It was a brilliant system.
There is very little in the Constitution which is subjective or open to interpretation. If all Judges on the supreme Court knew THE CONSTITUTION as well as I do, and obeyed it, 99.9999% of the opinions on constitutional issues would be 9 – 0. Unanimous.
We have split decisions b/c the judges don’t follow the Constitution. They look within the fetid recesses of their own minds and get their opinions from that mental sewer. When THAT is the basis for judicial opinions- split decisions are inevitable.
LikeLike
In short, we have no recourse.
SCOTUS declares a law constitutional, Congress is released from the Duty to declare law unconstitutional. In other words, all branches collude by agreement to create unconstitutional law, and it is political trading. In one instance, one politician says “my turn to violate”, in the next another says ‘my turn to violate’ and on it goes.
Marbury is a failure because as doctrine, SCOTUS may at the same time declare law valid when it is not. That is not what the Constitution says. All are responsible, not SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has no power over Congress as we’ve said.
The people have no recourse since SCOTUS can, by decree, jail us. Again, no constitutional power to do so, it is legal doctrine.
Yet we cannot jail SCOTUS, Congress, or the President. They’ve destroyed the balance using Marbury as the first assumption of unconsititutional power.
nullification will not work as witnessed in current scenario where individuals are simply jailed using a contempt of court decree. States failed to move to protect their law from overreach of federal authority. I have witnessed in the current scenario a ‘prefect storm’ of bad law supporting bad law.
LikeLike
No no no no.
Have you read this? https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/the-oath-of-office-the-check-on-usurpations-by-congress-the-executive-branch-federal-judges/
have you read this? https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense/
I can show you the door. But you are the one who decides whether you will open it and walk thru.
LikeLike
I have read many of your nullification pieces (using the tag function more specifically for ‘obamacare’), I used your material to write one of my own, as by your recommendation we should be writing about it, and I cite some of your work there as well.
http://adhominemthememe.newsvine.com/_news/2015/08/14/33795018-nullification-is-not-constitutional-law
An oath of office is nulilfiable, and that fact is obviated in your link to the oath of office. They are doing it.
They have declared, and we have no recourse, that to nullify is to defy a court order which is deemed punishable by jail, as we have witnessed in the recent imprisonment of Kim Davis. We’re no longer citizens, we are subjects.
No judge can be thrown in jail for nullification of our US Constitution. That is the reality I see. It is very well to speak of how things should work, it is something else to observe how it is working. Piece by piece, the US Constitution is nullified by those who swear an oath to uphold it. Unfortunately by popular consent, it appears that the people want it.
It is ‘the creature’, and it dictates.
LikeLike
you already read and pondered the papers I just now linked to?
I can show you the door – but you decide whether you will open it and walk through or maintain your existing views.
LikeLike
No, I am a slow reader. Much of it is identified in much of your work. I am reading and commenting on your papers om several instances.
I am still reading, I understand the metaphor of ‘leading a horse to water’.
LikeLike
I have been watching The Matrix, Part I. VERY good…… Very important passages near the beginning between Neo and Morpheous – I have been quoting the movie.
LikeLike
:^)
I have a recommendation for you, that is to stop watching the movie, watch the documentary (philosophy behind the matrix) in the special features disc (if you have that set), then watch the movie, and oh, by the way, skip the violence, bad stress. 😉
furthermore see “Ex Machina” for insight to development of what we believe is artificial intelligence, intelligence is man-made art, it is all about us humans.
LikeLike
I will look for an edition of The Matrix which has the special features disc; and for Ex Machina. Thank you!
LikeLike
A dissenting opinion: “… so I see a certain appeal to this shattering of myth, to the temptation to believe that the constitutional text doesn’t constrain us much at all, so that we are free to assert our own values unencumbered by fidelity to the stodgy traditions of a distant past… Maybe I am too steeped in the myth of the founding to reject it entirely.” -Barack H Obama, The Audacity of Hope, pgs. 91-92
LikeLike
There! I put them together for you.
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
We’re it not for the guns and the graft, you could ignore most federal laws with impunity.
“Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.” – St. Augustine (354-430), in Book IV of The City of God
LikeLike
Thank you, Brad! That is a wonderful passage from St. Augustine. I hadn’t seen it before.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] More… […]
LikeLike
Publius: I learn from you each time you send something. I always forward on so others like myself will become less ignorant. Keep up the good work please! Very sad that Ed is enduring tough times right now. John Mullins
LikeLike
Thank you, John. You show me that I am not singing to an empty room.
Yes, I too am so sorry about the pain Ed is enduring.
Thank you for contacting me.
LikeLike
Thanks. Passed on to certain State legislators. We will be making a strong effort after the primaries in March to get a constitution group formed in the legislature using the book as the “standard” for them.
I have already approached Jonathan Stickland and Konni Burton on the idea. These are good ones.
Bob
LikeLike
Did you see where Josh Earnest of the White House said, “the success of our democracy depends on the rule of law, and there is no public official that is above the law.” The hypocrisy of that statement is without a doubt the thinking of the ruling class in our country, lowly public officials are not above the unconstitutional rulings and laws set forth by a government that violates it’s own oath to promote political correctness, which happens to be the highest form of stupidity we face in our country today. The Constitution does not exist for these people, except when it benefits them. Thomas Jefferson said “When injustice becomes the law, then rebellion becomes duty, we are at that stage now.
LikeLike
Very enlightening.
LikeLike