Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Purp" data-source="post: 2743580" data-attributes="member: 12852"><p>How and why is the supremacy clause pertinent? If the Constitution doesn't expressly grant the U.S. legislature authority to establish a national religion or prohibit the establishment of a state religion how can a law pursuant to that constitution have supremacy over a conflicting law from a "subordinate" legislature?</p><p></p><p>There shouldn't ever be a conflicting law between state governments and the federal government bc only the general government can legislate on items granted to it by the Constitution and only the states can legislate on items not granted to the U.S. government in the Constitution. Those are two distinctly different areas of authority and inherently can't conflict. The only time the supremacy clause should strike down a state is if a state attempts to legislate on an area in which the federal government has been granted authority by that state. Otherwise it's irrelevant. In this case, the federal government has no authority on the matter of religion so the supremacy clause should not apply to the states.</p><p></p><p>I get it and stated already that SCOTUS has screwed this up like a lot of other things throughout history. It doesn't make it right.</p><p></p><p>Regarding secession, states most certainly reserved the right to secede during ratification. Virginia most famously reserved the right to secede as a condition of ratification, but a few other skeptical states did too. Virginia would not have ratified (Mason and Henry were winning the argument) had secession not been reserved as a right during ratification. Patrick Henry still didn't support ratification. Rhode Island was another such state. It wasn't until Lincoln that this notion was ever challenged.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the due process clause, that's the most famous bastardization of words in our legal history. The 14th amendment specifically applied to the freedmen emancipated by the 13th. Initial court decisions agreed with that limited scope. It has since been broadened and broadened again and again to what you accept now. The due process clause is supposed to only ensure all people emancipated by the 13th amendment were treated the same as states treated their citizens prior to emancipation. It did not, nor was it intended to, incorporate the 1st or any other amendment into its umbrella. SCOTUS did that many years later after overturning a prior court precedent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Purp, post: 2743580, member: 12852"] How and why is the supremacy clause pertinent? If the Constitution doesn't expressly grant the U.S. legislature authority to establish a national religion or prohibit the establishment of a state religion how can a law pursuant to that constitution have supremacy over a conflicting law from a "subordinate" legislature? There shouldn't ever be a conflicting law between state governments and the federal government bc only the general government can legislate on items granted to it by the Constitution and only the states can legislate on items not granted to the U.S. government in the Constitution. Those are two distinctly different areas of authority and inherently can't conflict. The only time the supremacy clause should strike down a state is if a state attempts to legislate on an area in which the federal government has been granted authority by that state. Otherwise it's irrelevant. In this case, the federal government has no authority on the matter of religion so the supremacy clause should not apply to the states. I get it and stated already that SCOTUS has screwed this up like a lot of other things throughout history. It doesn't make it right. Regarding secession, states most certainly reserved the right to secede during ratification. Virginia most famously reserved the right to secede as a condition of ratification, but a few other skeptical states did too. Virginia would not have ratified (Mason and Henry were winning the argument) had secession not been reserved as a right during ratification. Patrick Henry still didn't support ratification. Rhode Island was another such state. It wasn't until Lincoln that this notion was ever challenged. Regarding the due process clause, that's the most famous bastardization of words in our legal history. The 14th amendment specifically applied to the freedmen emancipated by the 13th. Initial court decisions agreed with that limited scope. It has since been broadened and broadened again and again to what you accept now. The due process clause is supposed to only ensure all people emancipated by the 13th amendment were treated the same as states treated their citizens prior to emancipation. It did not, nor was it intended to, incorporate the 1st or any other amendment into its umbrella. SCOTUS did that many years later after overturning a prior court precedent. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"
Top