Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

a declarationby Gary Wood

Those who eye a nationalist agenda, desiring to finally complete the subjugation of states to mere mid-management levels, have long embraced the notion states are subordinate while the federal government is supreme. This idea has been presented long enough many who may consider the idea of states’ rights, or powers, stop short when they remember what they have been taught. There are documented instances those who teach state subordination can point to, after all.

Rarely do I present a live seminar on the 9th and 10th Amendments where someone in the audience does not finally raise their hand and ask a question similar to the one above. Sometimes the question is phrased; “Aren’t the states subordinate, after all the Constitution says it is the supreme law of the land?” Or if they are well researched on the subject a person may even challenge state rights, or powers, by referring to the words of one of the staunchest defenders of the states, Thomas Jefferson. The question then may sound like; “Thomas Jefferson himself said states, and all governments under the great government, are subordinate so how can you challenge his words?”

No matter how the question is phrased it still comes down to a question of supremacy and subordination. By the founding generation’s own understanding, to be subordinate is to be lower in power or subject to higher authority. When progressive nationalists today talk of this, there is an often unspoken ending to their comments on subordination. Those unspoken words enter our mind and skew the very understanding of what the Constitution and other written words are talking about. The unspoken words are ‘in all things’ and that is where the argument breaks down while clarity can be found.

The U.S. Constitution does state clearly it is the supreme law of the land, there is no argument there. Also, Thomas Jefferson, in an 1816 letter to Joseph Cabell, did write the following;

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.“

Just like his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, where the famous phrase regarding a separation of church and state can be found, the comments must be taken in context to clarify understanding. Keep in mind the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, and all others writing about supreme law and subordination were not referring to all things. What the federal government is supreme in is those areas the states transferred political power to it, the enumerated powers. In addition, an unconstitutional law is not supreme, only laws that are constitutional. The intent was not to create a supreme national government, even though some founders were in favor of such an arrangement it was defeated time and again.

Turn your attention first to the preamble in the Bill of Rights. In the first part of the preamble you will find the following clarifications;

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. (Emphasis added)

The states were very concerned about the usurpation of power by the federal government. There was uneasiness and suspicion among many people and espoused by the anti-federalists. It was believed the Constitution could be manipulated in too many ways without the addition of a Bill of Rights and the final amendment ratified by the state conventions was the 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.”

In order to be supreme, laws must be Constitutional and there are only specific, delegated powers that fall under that supremacy. Beyond those specific powers supremacy defaults to the states or to the people. Our heritage is not built upon a supreme federal government no matter what the structure may look like today and no matter how much progressive nationalists today would like us to believe it is. Study our history and carefully listen to the words of both the founding generations and the modern progressives. Although their arguments can, on the surface, sound as if they are fundamentally correct you will find more often they will not stand the scrutiny of critical thinking.

Gary Wood is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He works with the Utah 912 States’ Rights Coalition and Hosts March of Liberty Radio every Saturday and Sunday evening at 7pm EST on Blog Talk Radio. He is a lifetime member of the VFW among other groups but more important to him is his title of grandpa. “According to Thomas Jefferson the 10th Amendment is keystone to our Constitution. We must restore the keystone so we can secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, a goal of our Founders and a goal we must still strive to achieve.”

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

,

Leave a Reply

26 Responses to Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

  1. Escapee January 15, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    “If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action.” (http://www.vlib.us/amdocs/texts/culloch.htm)

    Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

    Always? I would say no.

    • Escapee January 24, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

      Here’s one of the cites I was looking for:

      “It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one, limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute, exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia.”
      [Cohens v. Virginia,, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 265; 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821)]

      To spell it out completely, the first case of supreme power is those powers charted in the Constitution, and limited by the first ten amendments. The second case of supreme power is that power over the District of Columbia, the territories and enclaves of the United States. THIS POWER IS UNLIMITED, and this is where nearly every constitutionalist errs–they confuse the Citizen of the state with the subjects of the U.S. government–those who are
      “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

      The courts HAVE been correct, and the Constitution has not been breached. It’s the person/subject of the national government who is confused.

    • Escapee January 24, 2010 at 8:18 pm #

      Found another one:

      “It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.”
      [Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936)]

      In other words, the national government has no authority within the state’s sphere of action. (But they DO have authority over their “persons” “within the jurisdiction”, don’t they?)

      The law IS consistent!

  2. arjis January 16, 2010 at 7:27 am #

    Exceptional article Gary. Extremely well referenced.

    The Progressive or Statist today wants to make us believe that the Constitution allows for and directs the big government that we are inundated with daily, and then, after citing that, claim that it is the supreme law of the land, and it must be obeyed.

    The steady decay of the demarcation line between the enumerated powers of the federal government, and the rights of the people and the states, has left us in the state we are in now, with a federal government that believes that all states and people of this country must accept any piece of legislation it decides to deal out.

  3. Conservative1st January 16, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    Can you cite any recent, or modern day SCOTUS rulings restricting the Commerce or Supremacy clauses and strengthening the 10th amendment? While I continue to agree with the sentiment expressed here, I have a hard time imagining the federal government, including SCOTUS, limiting it's power or reach.

    As an example: One of the states, and I can't remember which one, passed a law nullifying federal gun laws. What did the federal government do in response? Sent letters to gun dealers telling them to disregard that law and follow federal mandates or basically face the consequences. I wonder how many of those gun dealers chose to ignore the warnings from the feds?

    • @twitimbo January 17, 2010 at 1:16 am #

      This is why all nullification efforts are useless without the ability to arrest on site of federal agents.

  4. @twitimbo January 17, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    Remember, it is the constitution's supreme authority that establishes what laws are supreme and what government are. Clearly the federal government is supreme in negotiating treaties and similar things but the state is supreme in almost all other aspects. The federal government did not establish that. It was the constitution that established that which makes the constitution the determining force about who has what power. No government in the system can arbitrarily decide that.

    • Escapee January 17, 2010 at 11:03 am #

      What would happen if the federal government were to create a special class of citizenship for the residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Wouldn’t that be lawful, and moral, and constitutional?

      Now, what if these persons were resident in the states? Could the federal government compel the states to treat them as state citizens?

  5. B. Johnson January 18, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    Another TENTH AMENDMENT CENTER participant recently posted an excerpt from Chief Justice Marshall’s writings. If I understood Justice Marshall correctly, he indicated that when the states delegate power to Congress via the Constitution, provided that the states have not expressly prohibited themselves from having such power in the Constitution, the states can still make laws based on that power. And in such cases federal law does trump state laws. (Corrections welcome as I didn’t bookmark the page.)

    However, given that the states can always amend the Constitution to repeal their original delegation of a specific power to Congress, regardless that federal laws can trump state laws, state power is ultimately absolute, IMO.

    Again, corrections are welcome, this time because I’m basing my statement on how I believe the system is supposed to work as opposed to being able to provide examples since state sovereignty has been ignored for so long, including by state lawmakers.

  6. arjis January 18, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    >>>>What would happen if the federal government were to create a special class of citizenship for the residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Wouldn't that be lawful, and moral, and constitutional?<<<<

    I may be mistaken, but I believe if you are born in a territory of the US you are a citizen as well..

    Is this correct? I need to research this…

    • Escapee January 18, 2010 at 7:17 am #

      We can see in [i]Hooven[/i] that there are three definitions of United States. http://openjurist.org/324/us/652/hooven-allison-co-v-evatt paragraph 42. Could there be more than one definition for “citizen”?

      Would your citizens of the US be the same as those who have their citizenship thru one of the compact states? How do the terms “persons” and “residents” fit into this picture?

    • @twitimbo January 18, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

      Yes. I believe under the constitution you are a citizen of the US but since the US is just composed of 50 states so then how can you be a citizen of any part of the country if you are not a citizen of any state?

  7. Escapee January 18, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    I have a problem with the phrase “under the constitution”. Please cite the clause showing the state citizen to be within the purview of the federal constitution.

    The federal government was given authority regarding state citizens abroad, and the states delegated it that power. Providing for the common defense was one of the reasons the federal government was created. And, among the United States, the citizen traveler may rely on Article IV, clause 1. Is this what you mean by “citizen of any part of the country”?

    There is at least one other type of citizen, one purely of the United States. That would be one “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. But could this phrase be used in describing a citizen of a state?

  8. sensible99 January 23, 2010 at 1:15 am #

    Aren't our senators and representatives supposed to work for the people of the STATE, not to push a presidential agenda? States need to reign in their representatives and remind them who they work for.

  9. Chad January 19, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    Really the only one who can determine if you are a United States citizen is you, A case that was fought all the way to the Florida Supreme Court is Jennings vs Hood. The US code is often difficult to understand. For instance in one place in defining its citizens the code referrers to the "states"… but if you read further down the code then defines the states as "Puerto Rico, Guam, and territories…"

  10. @twitimbo January 20, 2010 at 8:43 pm #

    I believe that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and everyone is subject to it because prohibition was an amendment that did not apply to the federal or state but to the people. It was a law just like any other so the constitution is a set of laws but the difference is is supreme to everything in the system including laws passed by the federal government.

    Its not a federal constitution but a constitution of all fifty states together and that document creates the federal government which makes the federal government a creation of the states by the constitution they created.

  11. Escapee January 20, 2010 at 3:52 am #

    I'd like to read that case, Chad. Do you have a cite? I didn't find it with google, and my library-schlepping days are over.

    I believe this case could help illustrate the two different "citizens of the United States", as the Hooven case in my comment above illustrates the three different entities of "United States". It is my impression that the citizens of "Puerto Rico, Guam, and territories…" are not the same citizens as the citizens of the compact states, regardless of their similar name.

    My apologies for the double post following. Not seeing my post after a period of time, I thought it was important enough to write a second time.

  12. Chad January 23, 2010 at 10:59 pm #

    I have a hard copy of it… I don't think that it was ever converted to digital format for internet publishing…. and I only got it because Mr. Jennings gave my boyfriend most of his law library and case files. So I am not sure how I can get a copy of it to you.

  13. Escapee January 24, 2010 at 3:44 am #

    Unfortunately, many winning cases are unreported slip decisions. They're valid, but the public never hears of them.

    I was active in Citizen law at one time, and know some people that might be very interested. Contact me at escapee@mailinator.com, and I'll pass the info on.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right? | Tenth Amendment Center -- Topsy.com - January 15, 2010

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stefan/Petra Raab, TenthAmendmentCenter, qutequte, Lou Riccio, Eric Holmes and others. Eric Holmes said: Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right? http://bit.ly/5vctUE (via @RonPaul_2012) [...]

  2. Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right? | The Ruthless Truth blog - January 16, 2010

    [...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/15/federal-law-is-always-supreme-right/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]

  3. uberVU - social comments - January 17, 2010

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by RonPaul_2012: Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right? http://bit.ly/5clKsi #tlot #tcot #RonPaul…

  4. Nullification In 5..4..3..2..1..Freedom! | The Substratum - March 5, 2010

    [...] Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right? If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! [...]

  5. Nullification – Our Constitutional Option | Wolves of Liberty - April 9, 2010

    [...] Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right? [...]