State Attorney General Roy Cooper refuses to protect North Carolinians from the usurpations and transgressions of an ever grasping federal government. In a letter to Governor Beverly Perdue, he stated that whatever legislation the federal government passes, even if it is unconstitutional, is the supreme law of the land:
"This office should not attempt to enforce state legislation that clearly violates federal law," Cooper said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Another issue is unintended consequences. While it is unenforceable as to federal law, it could be enforceable as to existing state law."
"State legislatures cannot pick and choose which federal laws the state will obey," Cooper wrote to Perdue, pointing to federal rules requiring body scans of pat downs at airports about which many North Carolina residents complain. "The same principle applies here as with other federal laws, even those laws we don't like or agree with."
You cannot compare pat downs at airports with Obamacare. I don’t have to fly; therefore I can avoid being molested by TSA agents. But under Obamacare, I’m forced to buy a product or be fined and thrown in jail. There is a big difference.
Brion McClanahan PHD from the University of South Carolina defines the Supremacy Clause and its limitations:
The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “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 [emphasis added].”
The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.
Hugh Williamson, a North Carolina delegate to the Constitutional convention and signer, emphasized this very point:
To most of the assembled delegates, the national government was not the center of the political universe and the States retained their sovereignty. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina emphatically stated he “was against giving a power that might restrain the states from regulating their internal police.”
Dr. McClanahan further demonstrates the concerns and wisdom of our founding fathers:
By the time the Constitution was debated in the several State ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, the “supremacy clause” galvanized opponents of the document. The Constitution, they said, would destroy the States and render them impotent in their internal affairs. The response from proponents of ratification illuminates the true intent of the clause. William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina and proponent of the Constitution, responded to attacks levied on the “supremacy clause” by stating that:
This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations [emphasis added].
Davie wasn’t alone in this opinion. Future Supreme Court justice James Iredell of North Carolina argued that, “This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution [emphasis added].”
Attorney General Roy Cooper is obviously oblivious to the concerns of North Carolina’s founding fathers. They were fearful of an all powerful federal government that would impose itself upon the states, and deny them the ability of self-governance.
Mr. Cooper’s inaction is an affront to the principles of our founding. He has proven himself a devotee and stooge of the Democratic Party.
Source: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/29/whos-supreme-the-supremacy-clause-smackdown/
http://www.m2mpolitics.com/news/says-1189-shouldn-defend.html
No comments:
Post a Comment