EMail - Federal Law Does NOT Trump State Law
Dear Mr Motta,
My name is Brian Thompson. I am a resident of Deer Lodge, but not inside the district 43 lines.After reading your campaign pamphlet that you have been handing out all over senate district 43, I have found a factual mistake in it's body.On the back side of the pamphlet under the section labeled "Judicial" you have stated that "Federal law does NOT trump state law".I am writing this to inform you that this is grotesquely incorrect.
The following is from article VI of the U.S. constitution.
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
As you can see, the constitution states that the supreme law of the land is the U.S. constitution, federal laws, treaties, and finally state laws; in that order.I just thought you should be aware of this in case one of your possible constituents questions you about this statement.
Response:
Brian,
Thank you for your comments on "Federal law does NOT trump state law". Unfortunately, the Constitution is being redefined by the courts and administrative agencies to nationalize the interpretation of law. The redefinition totally obscures the line of jurisdiction which reserves to the states those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. Initially, the interstate commerce clause was used as the basis for the courts' holding the "federal law trumps state law". That intrusion has been extended to practically every aspect of law and, consequently, the perception that the federal government is supreme. The revenue sharing act of 1986 assigned a dollar figure to compliance with federal law. Under the assumption that the federal government was a more effective tax collector, the states agreed to allow expansion of federal power with the expectations that the states would receive federal funding for programs they wished to initiate. What they failed to give significant weight to were the compliance rules, regulations and guidelines which were mandatory in order to receive revenue sharing funds. In effect, states rights have been destroyed by the greed of both levels of government. The supremacy of the federal government has been extended into all levels of state and local government through the issuance of grants and earmarks. There is hardly any level of government or nongovernment organizations seeking to fund a given program, that doesn't immediately ask the question, "Where can we get a grant?". The environment, drugs, ID's, guns and nearly every aspect of our lives is now presumed to be within federal jurisdiction. The secularization of morality, which was once the purview of churches, has been surrendered to a non-profit tax classification. The government now dictates which vices are crimes and the penalties for not complying with their version of morality.
The courts have no authority to revise or redefine the Constitution. The method of changing the Constitution is to amend it. By issuing their opinions and asserting that their political or social view is infallible and henceforth, the rule of the land, they violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Montana's Constitution was amended by initiative to specify term limits for elected officials. In a case concerning an Arkansas amendment the Supreme Court held that additional qualifications for federal elected officials could not be expanded by the states. The federal Constitution specifies citizenship, residence and age as qualification for federal office and defines the limit of federal jurisdiction. States should only have to comply with those provisions and the state legislatures are authorized to add additional qualifications. If the states do not have the authority to add additional qualifications, then laws pertaining to parties, campaign contributions, filing fees and other election laws should also be declared unconstitutional consistent with the federal Supreme Court's interpretation.The Montana Secretary of State presumed that the decision applied to federally elected officials and has not enforced the Montana constitutional provision concerning term limits. He has chosen to selectively exclude federal representatives from the term limits provision without seeking repeal or amendment of the Montana Constitution. The SOS takes an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions. Rather than complying with the will of the people of Montana, the SOS is selectively enforcing the opinion of five judges in Washington. This selective enforcement is in contravention of Montanan's public trust, a violation of his public duty and a breech of his oath of office. Extending their argument for federal control, you have to ask why we need state constitutions, statutes, legislators, administrators and/or courts.
If states continue to allow the imposition of federal control and the perception that "federal law trumps state law", we have destroyed the principles of the Federal Constitution which defines the limits of federal jurisdiction and specifically reserves to the states' those rights not delegated to the federal government. We are redefining and enforcing the Constitution to a communitarian rule of law which subjects individual rights to the majority rule of the community. The federal government and courts are persistently accumulating power by holding that the federal and states' Constitutions are unconstitutional. I believe that we have to defend the Constitution, limited government, states' and individual rights. Therefore, "Federal Law does NOT Trump State Law".
Thanks again.
Dick Motta
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The communitarians call this process of changing U.S. law "balancing." What an absolute suprise and delight to see an American politican who understands what the heck is going on!
Communitarian Law is defined as supreme law over all conflicting national and state law, and all entering regional trade union member nations are required to modify their national constitutions to fit the global program.
Montanans are very fortunate to have a candidate familiar with one of the many processes being used to eliminate their freedoms.
Dick, you may be the first candidate to be endorsed by the ACL. I never thought I'd see the day when a candidate said something that really, really matters.
Good luck and let me know it there's anything I can do to help get your clear and vital message to the voters.
Dick, are you familiar with The Enumerated Powers Act,S3159 and HR1359? In a nut shell, if passed, it would force Congress to cite it's authority for every law it passes. Check http://thomas.loc.gov/for more details, as well as the senators and reps who are sponsors and co-sponsors. Even though this is federal, I'd like to know where you stand on this bill? Since both the Montana congressional delagation as well as the State officers take the oath of office to "swear or affirm...to support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States and the state of Montana."
I look forward to your reply as well as the other state candidates.
I notice that Mr.Brian T left out the "people" in his chain of comand. Wonder where he'd place them.
This discussion, on both sides, is confused. The authority of the U.S. Government under the Constitution is LIMITED to certain topics and areas. Within those areas, Federal law DOES trump State law. However, under the U.S. Constitution, the topics and areas that the Federal government can pass laws about are very limited. Outside of those areas, the Federal government is not supposed to regulate at all. Under the Constitution, regulation outside of those proper areas is really VOID, to put it bluntly.
So neither side of this discussion is really describing things accurately. While Federal law does trump State law in certain, limited areas, the Sates are supposed to have the EXCLUSIVE authority in the vast majority of areas, and be left alone by the Federal government.
Mr. Moseley, Mr. Motta described things most accurately in his article, he said almost exactly what you describe in your comment. There is a vast difference between what's "supposed" to be and what is really happening to all U.S. constitutions.
Post a Comment