El Hotepsekhemwy Pero... An overwriting of; article by; Kermit Roosevelt and Caleb Nelson... [University of Pennsylvania and University of Virginiarespectively] content not used for pecuniary purposes... ___________________________________________ The Philadelphia Convention [May 1787], Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia presented “the Virginia plan” {Planned ZIP] —a collection of >>> resolutions forming <<< a >>> blueprint <<< [Blue - commercial/contract - as opposed to a red-print...?] for the Constitution. Also stating; “the National Legislature ought to be impowered . . . to negative [a term that literally means to ignore] all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting >>> under <<< the >>> authority of the Union<<<.” [Basically giving themselves authority - also note; this does not give rise to the fact; that if a State were to legislate a law that raises a standard or right in the best interest of the public in equity then equality of the law applies...] Supporters of this same concept were optimistic about its outcome. Then Charles Pinckney and James Madison moved to extend the proposed congressional “negative” so as to reach all state laws that Congress deemed “improper.” After dismissal of a couple prior motions, the Convention approved a precursor of the Supremacy Clause that went through various changes in the ensuing months, but the final version 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. " Instead of giving Congress additional powers, the Supremacy Clause simply addresses the >>> legal status <<< [a fiction - let's be "frank"...!!!] of the laws that other parts of the Constitution empower Congress to make, as well as the legal status of treaties and >>> the Constitution itself <<<. [The Constitution itself IS a Legal Status of fiction] The core message of the Supremacy Clause is simple: the Constitution and federal laws (of the types listed in the first part of the Clause [Note by; El... types; real or fiction...?]) take priority over any conflicting >>> rules of state law <<< [Does NOT say one thing about law but rather; the "rules" [o]f law]. >>> This principle is so familiar that we often take it for granted. <<< [ #QUITVOLUNTEERING ] Still, the Supremacy Clause has several notable features. To begin with, the Supremacy Clause contains the Constitution’s most explicit references to what >>> lawyers call <<< >>> “judicial review” <<< —the idea that even duly enacted statutes do not supply rules of decision for courts to the extent that the statutes are unconstitutional. Some scholars say that the Supremacy Clause’s reference to “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]” itself incorporates this idea; in their view, a federal statute is not “made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]” unless the Constitution really authorizes Congress to make it. <<< ____________________________________ Let's take a break here and really think about that... Who is Congress... The DEBTOR... Thus the States can't make a claim against them under the full faith and credit clause subject TO the Supremacy clause... ____________________________________ Other scholars say that this phrase simply refers to the lawmaking process described in Article I, and does not necessarily distinguish duly enacted federal statutes that conform to the Constitution from duly enacted federal statutes that do not. [In my opinion here; this is a rather accurate statement with it I will ad - the distinction to be made is that of the common law] But no matter how one parses this specific phrase, [truth is truth] the Supremacy Clause unquestionably describes the Constitution as “Law” of the sort that courts apply. That point is a pillar of the argument for judicial review. In addition, the Supremacy Clause explicitly specifies that the Constitution binds the judges in every state notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary. [The binding is contractual - commercial - pecuniary - emoluments - money - frn's - obligation] The Supremacy Clause also establishes a noteworthy principle about treaties. Under the traditional British rule, treaties made by the Crown committed Great Britain on the international stage, but they did not have domestic legal effect; if Parliament wanted British courts to apply rules of decision drawn from a treaty, Parliament needed to enact implementing legislation. [This is an important distinction in that the United States empowered itself with the greater "taxing authority" over the Queen] The Supremacy Clause breaks from this principle. Subject to limits found elsewhere in the Constitution, treaties are capable of directly establishing rules of decision for American courts. [Thus; "under the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution]”]... This aspect of the Supremacy Clause reflected concerns that individual states were jeopardizing the fledgling nation’s security by putting the United States in violation of its treaty obligations. For instance, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Article IV of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain had specified that: >>> [ #QUITVOLUNTEERING ] “creditors on either side[] shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.” <<< !!! [Equal stations in life - equal consideration - if one is selling something then what are the buying in return/exchange...? Each party IS a "creditor [t]o the other!!! Owe no man any thing...] Nonetheless, several states enacted or retained debtor-relief laws whose enforcement against British creditors would violate this promise, and British diplomats argued that these violations excused Britain’s own failure to withdraw all armies and garrisons from the United States. The Supremacy Clause responded to this problem: just as state courts were not supposed to apply state laws that conflicted with the Constitution itself, so too state courts were not supposed to apply state laws that conflicted with Article IV of the Treaty of Peace. Indeed, the peculiar wording of the Supremacy Clause—covering treaties already “made . . . under the Authority of the United States” as well as treaties that “shall be made” in the future—was specifically designed to encompass pre-existing agreements like the Treaty of Peace. While modern scholars have debated the circumstances in which treaties should be understood to establish rules of decision for cases in American courts, the Supremacy Clause unquestionably makes such treaties possible. [The importance of their own FRCP Rule 803(16) and Rule 901 - Certification is False!!! Ye are already ordained as a peacemaker - a prophet unto the nations...] [ THIS IS NOT YOUR CONSTITUTION - IT IS AN INSUFFICIENT MIRROR] Under the Supremacy Clause, the “supreme Law of the Land” also includes federal statutes enacted by Congress. Within the limits of the powers that Congress gets from other parts of the Constitution, Congress can establish rules of decision that American courts are bound to apply, even if state law purports to supply contrary rules. Congress also has at least some authority to put certain topics wholly off limits to state law, or otherwise to restrict what state law can validly say about those topics. As long as the directives that Congress enacts are indeed authorized by the Constitution, they take priority over both the ordinary laws and the constitution of each individual state. (During the ratification period, Anti-Federalists objected to the fact that federal statutes and treaties could override aspects of each state’s constitution and bill of rights. But while this feature of the Supremacy Clause was controversial, it is unambiguous.) [ "Congress >>> can <<< establish rules of decision that American courts are bound to apply, even if state law purports to supply contrary rules." - The contorversy here is as I mentioned before; WHAT and WHERE does Congress get it's authority...? What is the Equality - equal station at minimum for the one that originally grants that power ey...] >>> In modern times, the Supreme Court has recognized various ways in which federal statutes >>> can <<< [does] displace or “preempt” state law. Some federal statutes include express “preemption clauses” forbidding states to enact or enforce certain kinds of laws. <<< [Preempts the very fact mentioned above again on equal stations in life... they ARE in contractual binding with "Equal Cinsideration AND Equal Benefit" - If a State finds a Better benefit that can be equally shared then it would thus be detrimental to Continue in Current actions by NOT taking advantage for the bigger whole] A few other federal statutes have been interpreted as implicitly stripping states of lawmaking power throughout a particular field. But even when a federal statute does not contain an express preemption clause, and even when the statute does not implicitly occupy an entire field to the exclusion of state law, the directives that the statute validly establishes still supersede any conflicting directives that the law of an individual state might purport to supply. [Again; they can not preempt the equity in pure nature - if a State Statute is created that asserts a greater standard or superior right then the Federal must be convinced by a multitude... quorum of States - so; one State law can be associatively of equal "Stat"ion... Then they can present a bill to Congress...] Who can raise the standard and how...? Your-self... stand... Any thing less lowers the standard...

Posted by El Hotepsekhemwy Pero at 2020-12-03 06:26:39 UTC