Sirs/Madams,
Lost in your editorial excoriation of Senator Boots and his pursuit of Nullification are many Constitutional and historical facts:
Article I Section 8 and the subsequent Amendments to the US Constitution limit the authority of the Federal Government to specified functions. That is why the wording isn’t “any thing Congress wishes to do.”
Article VI, Clause 2 (the so called “Supremacy” clause) applies only to the areas in which the Federal Government has authority. “…This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;”… Therefore, laws made OUTSIDE of the Constitution are not “supreme.”
Amendment X: “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”.
Article III does NOT give SCOTUS the power to determine “Constitutionality.” That they grabbed that power in 1803 (Marbury v Madison) and the States let them get away with it is our problem now. (See: Federalist Papers 79-83 by Hamilton.)
There is a long history of SCOTUS rulings that were eventually reversed by SCOTUS itself, later, or by Amendment. Dred Scott v. Sanford and “Separate But Equal” (Plessy v Ferguson) are just a couple of glaring errors. Cooper v. Aaron will be one of those in the future.
The Founders intended that the States have final say on what the Federal government does. Article V acknowledges that the States put this Republic together; they can take it apart if they choose.
It's sad your paper doesn't seem to care about that.
Lost in your editorial excoriation of Senator Boots and his pursuit of Nullification are many Constitutional and historical facts:
Article I Section 8 and the subsequent Amendments to the US Constitution limit the authority of the Federal Government to specified functions. That is why the wording isn’t “any thing Congress wishes to do.”
Article VI, Clause 2 (the so called “Supremacy” clause) applies only to the areas in which the Federal Government has authority. “…This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;”… Therefore, laws made OUTSIDE of the Constitution are not “supreme.”
Amendment X: “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”.
Article III does NOT give SCOTUS the power to determine “Constitutionality.” That they grabbed that power in 1803 (Marbury v Madison) and the States let them get away with it is our problem now. (See: Federalist Papers 79-83 by Hamilton.)
There is a long history of SCOTUS rulings that were eventually reversed by SCOTUS itself, later, or by Amendment. Dred Scott v. Sanford and “Separate But Equal” (Plessy v Ferguson) are just a couple of glaring errors. Cooper v. Aaron will be one of those in the future.
The Founders intended that the States have final say on what the Federal government does. Article V acknowledges that the States put this Republic together; they can take it apart if they choose.
It's sad your paper doesn't seem to care about that.
Michael
Morris
Lafayette, IN
No comments:
Post a Comment