Comments on: Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

By: Nullification – Our Constitutional Option | Wolves of Liberty

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 21:49:58 +0000

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

By: Nullification In 5..4..3..2..1..Freedom! | The Substratum

Nullification In 5..4..3..2..1..Freedom! | The Substratum — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:01:20 +0000

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

By: Escapee

Escapee — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:18:35 +0000

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!

By: Escapee

Escapee — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:19:18 +0000

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

â€œIt 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.

By: Escapee

Escapee — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:44:07 +0000

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.

By: Chad

Chad — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:59:24 +0000

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.

By: sensible99

sensible99 — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:15:08 +0000

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.

By: @twitimbo

@twitimbo — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:43:03 +0000

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.

By: Escapee

Escapee — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:52:41 +0000

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.

By: Chad

Chad — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:35:13 +0000

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…"