State sovereignty has NOTHING to do with a state's GOVERNMENT, but ENTIRELY to do with the state's PEOPLE!

Each state is POPULARLY sovereign: i.e. the each citizen of the state, is a SUPREME RULER of that state; and together, they constitute the RULING SOVEREIGNS of that state. That's called DEMOCRACY-- i.e. each person, being naturally endowed with inalienable rights, simply DELEGATES authority to a subordinate representative in government; the government or state does not OWN that power.... or that PERSON.

So only THE PEOPLE of a state, can overrule the federal government-- and they can do so by popular vote in a state convention called for that purpose.

Naturally, this was suppressed by mass-murder and censorship beginning in 1861, and it never stopped: i.e. popular state sovereignty is the LAW, but it has been quashed by the federal Amerikan empire for the past 150+ years.

The article states:

"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..."

"Clearly" in whose judgment?
In order to poperly "nullify" a federal law, requires the majority of a state's PEOPLE to vote such a decree in a state convention; without this popular mandate, the state government can't simply thump the Constitution and do so on their own authority, citing the "Tenth Amendment. "
This movement is barking up the wrong tree, as always.

As always, I find it essential to point out the fundamental difference between law and sovereignty; i.e. while the Constitution may be supreme law, national sovereignty always lay with the people of each state-- not the state (or federal) government. This means that federal law was an international "treaty" among the states-- i.e. the Union was not sovereign nation, but simply a voluntary union among sovereign nations.
Therefore if the people of a state (i.e. a state majority) chose to abrogate a federal law, then that law would simply cease to exist-- just like any other treaty abrogated by a nation.

Those who seek to discuss state sovereignty as flowing from Constitutional law, are thus missing the point-- and losing the argument; if they fail to argue that each state is a sovereign nation, then they implicitly concur that the Union is a sovereign nation, and the states are subordinate to it.
And therefore, their constitutional argument simply becomes a personal opinion with zero legal impact.

This is why I emphasize fundamental state sovereignty as the only matter of importance-- as did Madison, Jefferson, and the other Founders.

When Congress passes Constitutional laws, then the States have the obligation to abide by those laws, but when Congress passes laws that are blatantly Un-Constitutional then it is the duty of the State government to resist with the utmost force possible and deny the exercise of those Un-Constitutional laws on the Citizens of the Several States. The supremacy of the Constitution not only embraces the powers delegated to the federal government, but it also embraces those powers reserved to the Several States as they perform a valuable function within our system of governments. There is, inherent in the reservation of powers and rights to the States a declaration that the States are in the position of supremacy over those rights and powers reserved to them rather than the federal government, which has no jurisdiction in those areas; in a similar fashion the States have no supremacy over those rights and powers they delegated to the federal government, yet the States do provide a check upon an extension of those powers beyond the measure prescribed within the Constitution.

There must be a concerted effort on the part of the Citizens of the Several States to not only disavow, but to resist and nullify all laws that are contrary to the lawful adherence and exercise of the Constitution. The States have this power for direct and indirect opposition to laws passed by Congress that do not meet with the measure laid out by the Constitution. For if Congress can continue to take from the States and their Citizens through various legal fabrications and the use of coercion to enforce those fabrications then it can take everything away.

It is apparent that the federal government has, with the assistance of Judicial novelties, effectively abrogated the right of the States to a republican form of government; for now the federal government intrudes into every internal matter within the States and their Citizens, employing various legal measures and maneuvers to accomplish its treason against the Constitution. The abutment of the States reserved powers has been effectively eroded by these measures to the point that the federal government, by implication, can remove any person from the jurisdiction of the States or confiscate any property. We have become a plundered People without redress to the plunders. It is time for this People, though their Rightful State governments, deputized for their protection against usurpation, to stand in forceful resistance against the wiles of a federal government that has illegally imposed itself as sovereign over this People and their State Republics.

Equally as important is the understanding of the type of construction that was used to impart these divisions of power within our system of governments. There was an intentional degree of internal conflict imbedded into our Constitutional Republic. Since it appears that the federal government possesses the greater sphere of influence in terms of governing, due to the nature of the federal government, there is, as we have seen over the decades, a tendency for the Supreme Court to base its decisions on the justification of the federal government’s positions. Such judicial actions can, of course, create distortions within our republican form of government. Over the years, expressed supremacy has been erroneously merged with implied supremacy within the federal government, as such; the government has assumed authority far beyond that which was enumerated. It should therefore, be obvious that by merging that which is actually expressed and enumerated with that which is merely implied there is a great possibility, as is the case presently with our federal government that instead of the government functioning within the defined limitations and restrictions found within the Constitution, the powers it has assumed have been amplified from implied powers to what now amounts to expressed powers without limitations. Due to these distortions of Constitutional construction, the Court now appears to insist that Congress, the Executive and the Court itself extends to supremacy over the powers reserved to the States themselves. The Constitution was carefully constructed to preserve the powers reserved to the states and well as those delegated from the Several States to the federal government and not where within the Constitution does it give exclusive right to one section of our system of governments to another.

The federal government cannot be the judge of its own limitations for it will always determine that such limitations are no limitations at all. A judge cannot judge his own case any more than our government can determine the extent of its own limitations, there must be external checks and balances which forcefully demand those limitations be obeyed.

Likewise, if the Supreme Court, for instance, is limited by its own will then its conception of power will always gravitate toward that power being unlimited. No power can ever be checked by itself for it will always assume the greatest degree of latitude in the exercise of that power. In such cases there is left little means of resistance except extreme resistance.

Does not a union of States denote the supremacy and equality of the parties forming the union and not the union itself? The act of union did not imply the reduction of the supremacy of the States nor the Sovereignty of the People, it was a mere contractual act between the States to provide a greater degree of flexibility and protection to the People of the Several States than they would have been provided without union.

John Locke correctly stated, “that no man has a right to that, which another has the right to take from him.” This is exactly the state of affairs that the People of this country are now subjected to by the federal government; the Court is more likely to judge the limitations of our Rights instead of the limitations of the government’s exercise of power over our Rights.

All Un-Constitutional laws, as well as Un-Constitutional Judgments of the Supreme Court itself are null and void. The Supreme Court is no less bound by its Oath to the Constitution than is the Legislature, the Executive or the States themselves. The States, like the other Branches of government, not only have a right, but also a duty to resist, by absolutely every means within their power, all Un-Constitutional laws or judgments. The Supreme Court has never had the exclusive right to determine its own jurisdiction, for to have such a right would essentially empower it with a jurisdiction without limits and without the ability to be redressed for its abuses.

Since it is the People who are Sovereign, the government, including our State governments cannot be sovereign; the State governments are equally limited in their scope of power as is the federal government. Our system of governments was intentionally subjected to limitations and restrictions, within none of them being exclusively empowered with the ability to enforce those limitations and restrictions, thus a system of checks and balances.

Derived power can never be greater than the power from which it is derived. Since all power is derived from the People themselves, no State or majority of States can exercise supremacy over any other State; equally as potent is the fact supremacy was not conferred to Congress, to the Executive or the Supreme Court because derived power can never be greater than the power from which it is derived. It is very apparent since the federal legislature cannot possess absolute unlimited power or supremacy, then the Executive nor the Supreme Court cannot posses it either. The principle of separate, but equal Branches of government would indeed be a contraction if one of those Branches had any supremacy over the others, likewise, the concept of a Republic of Republics, Free and Independent would equally be contradictory if the federal government had exclusive supremacy over the States.

In consideration of the fact that Un-Constitutional laws and judgments are null and void, such judgments and laws cannot be enforced since they are not indeed law, but mere fabrications of legislative deviancy. Herein is the power of the States, as deputized agents of the People, demonstrated in the nullification of such judgments and laws. The States, as deputized agents of the People, share the mutual Right of Constitutional construction as does the various Branches of the federal government, this is evident by the oath found within the Constitution that requires: “the Senators and Representatives in Congress, and the members of the Several State Legislatures, and all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the Several States, shall be bound, by oath of affirmation, to support the Constitution.”

This common duty to uphold the Constitution also implies an equal responsibility as to the determination of the actual nature of laws passed by the federal Legislature, executed by the federal Executive and if necessary, subsequently adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The truth is that our government is far more than just a single entity with single authority; it is multilayered with very defined spheres of limited power and with good reason, to protect the Liberty of the People and to provide the least amount of government intrusion into their lives. It must be understood that the constructive supremacy of one single political power over all others within our government invalidates the entire system upon which this country was founded.

How can there be a reconciliation between the principles found within the Constitutional Compact and the idea that, as the Supreme Court appears to contend, that is has the ultimate and final word on law? If, as the Supreme Court contends, it has the Constitutional authority to effect, with a certain finality, the laws of the Several States, even to abrogate those laws then would that not be a complete surrender of all control over the governments of the Several States, and thus, over the People of the Several States?
If the Supreme Court or the federal courts can abrogate any State law and control the States based upon any construction that it so pleases, then can there be any real retention of the mass of rights which, according to the Constitution, were reserved to the States themselves? Would therefore, the States have any security at all in retaining any of their rights if the federal Judiciary claims such supremacy? The guarantee of the right of republican governments to the States, a guarantee stemming from the Constitutional Compact not the federal government, could possibly be safe under the supremacy of such a federal court system?

The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy is contrary to the principles of internal self-government by the People of the Several States and essentially transfers all authority over every aspect of our political, social and economic life to the Supreme Court. Certainly that could not have been the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, nor of the Conventions of the Several States as they ratified the Constitution. The Framers were careful enough to divide powers between the Several States and the federal government, indeed they went as far as dividing the federal government in order to protect against centralized supremacy; it makes not since therefore, that after such care in construction they would place such an unlimited power within the Supreme Court. Indeed, they would not have placed a power within such a court that would essentially allow it to be the judge of its own limitations and the powers that were delegated to it as enumerated.

The very same principle that allows for the Judicial Branch to restrain the Legislature from extending its power beyond the prescribed enumerated Constitutional powers is also found within the Several States and is an added measure of protection against the usurpation and abuse of power. The States are no less powerful, no less respectable than the Supreme Court itself or any other Branch within our system of governments. Despite the current present condition of the State governments, subjugated to the federal government and pressed beyond measure to a servile state under the now centralized federal government, the States nevertheless, has the same power upon which the Supreme Court depends and they too are equally entrusted to discharge their Duty as Parties to the Constitutional Compact to be loyal to those principles upon which that Compact was founded.

We must, if we are to survive and restore the Republic, remember that the strength of the government lies within the People themselves. While it appears that this Grand Republic of Republics have been reduced to a shell of its former self, there is enormous power residing within the People themselves and there is nothing this deformed centralized government fears more than the power that is reserved to the People. The People are the origin of all power that is delegated to the governments; they are the protectors and the source of all deputized authority. The Framers of Our Constitution never intended any given sphere of government to acquire enough power to control all others, the final determining factor is the People themselves acting through their deputized agents called the governments of the Several States, which can, if necessary, act forcibly against the federal government through interposition, and as a final threat of authority, the abolition of the Compact of Union.

It is evident that the States, prior to the Compact of Union found within both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, were Free and Independent States; these attributes were not relinquished by the Compact of Union, in fact it demonstrates the full character of the States as Free and Independent entities in the ability to form such a Compact of Union.

That being said, it would then appear that there is no obligation of subordination of the legislatures of the Several States to the federal legislature; likewise, there is no supremacy of the federal judiciary over the judiciary powers of the Several States, except as explicitly expressed within the delegated and enumerated powers found within the Constitution. Since there has been, within the Constitutional Compact, a reservation of the residual mass of rights to the States it then follows that all the powers, limited in scope and operation, delegated to the legislature and judiciary of the federal government were deliberately prohibitive. Claims to the contrary defy the co-extensive restrictions on the enlargement of power or the assumption of power that would, by any Constitutional definition, be a trespass against the functional spheres of operation of the States.

There is, without doubt, no assertion of power more inconsistent with the principles of republican government than a claim by any portion of the federal government over the laws and Constitutions of the Several States. The annulment, by the federal government or any portion of the federal government, of the laws of the Several States is an abridgement of the oath that every elected federal official took to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America.

There is, without doubt, an obligation on the part of the governments of the States, as it is on the federal government, to comply with the Constitutional Compact; after all, it is a Compact between the Several States, not with the federal government and the Several States. The primary obligatory focus however, is on the federal government as the resulting agency of the Compact between the Several States, thus the delegation of powers to the federal government from the position the States take as creator of the Compact.

Thus, it is sufficient to say that the Supreme Court can most definitely declare un-Constitutional laws as void and ineffectual however, that does not mean that the Supreme Court may, based upon the authority delegated to it, be the sole authority of Constitutional construction. The final check on the federal government is not the Supreme Court, but the Several States themselves since the Supreme Court’s authority only extends to the limits of the powers delegated to it by the States and no more. It cannot legislate from the federal Bench, it can only determine the Constitutional value of a particular law as passed by Congress or, in the case of Appellate jurisdiction, the opinions of the inferior federal courts. The Supreme Court, as well as the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government are not constituent parts of the governments of the Several States, as such, there is no legitimate cause for any portion of the federal government to intrude into the measures taken within the Several States unless those State governments seek to abrogate their Constitutional obligations under the Compact. Likewise, the governments of the Several States cannot legitimately intrude into federal measures unless those measures are determined, by the Several States, to be a violation or usurpation of the Constitutional Compact which created, through ratification, the federal government.

During the ratification process, it is evident that the People of the Several States did not confide the federal government with every possible power, nor did they imbue the federal government the power to determine its own limitations. In the case of the federal Judiciary, the People of the Several States confided the Courts with the power to declare a federal law void and un-Constitutional, but the People, in their own Sovereign character through the agency of their Free and Independent States, provided that the spheres of action between the federal and State Judiciaries, were to be separate and distinct. So much so, that the relationship between the Judiciary of the States and that of the federal government could be compared with that of the court systems of two different States, separate jurisdictions and powers with no power to intrude in each other’s spheres of action or declare a law of a different State void. `

Also found within The Federalist 82.3, federal power is clearly defined: “…the principle that the States will retain ALL PRE-EXISTING AUTHORITIES not exclusively delegated to the federal government.”

Within the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, it appears that Jefferson is in concurrence:
“Resolved, that the Several States COMPOSING the United States of America ARE NOT UNITED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF UNLIMITED SUBMISSION TO THEIR GENERAL GOVERNMENT, but that by COMPACT under the style and title of the Constitution FOR the United States and of amendments thereto, THEY CONSTITUTED a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, RESERVING TO EACH STATE TO ITSELF THE RESIDUARY MASS OF RIGHT TO THEIR OWN SELF-GOVERNMENT; AND THAT WHENSOEVER THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT ASSUMES UNDELEGATED POWERS, ITS ACTS ARE UNAUTHORITATIVE, VOID AND OF NO FORCE: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but, that as in " all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the measure of redress."

There can be no doubt that while there is a complex relationship of co-organization between the Several States and the federal government, that they are indeed independent of each other and both the Several States and the federal government have the mutual right of construing the Constitution. It is both recognized and also asserted, as co-dependencies of government, the governments of the Several States and the federal government, along with the principle of those distinct governments, in principle, operate within distinct jurisdictions, and for a very good reason, so as not to allow the concentration of power to be formed by any government, whether it be those of the Several States or, in particular, the federal government. Thus, logical construction should follow that if the entirety of the federal government possesses no supremacy over, nor can require no subordination of the entirety of the State governments, then neither can any part of the federal government have supremacy over any corresponding part of the State governments or, for that matter, the Several States themselves or their citizens except in a very limited delegated manner prescribed by the Constitution.

These principles derive their force from The Declaration of Independence as demonstrated in M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where the Court held:
"This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted."

Again, in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Court stated:
"There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states…Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory…
"[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour."

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 139 (1837), the Court held:
"They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive,"

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212-223 (1845) the Court clearly delineates the strength of the State’s independence:
"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed,"
"Because, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted,"
"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law".

Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215:
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

Additionally, in consideration of proper understanding and construction the Court appeared to be in concurrence with The Federalist Papers:
" The jurisdiction of the general government, is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the Republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."

If we take such expounders of our Constitutional construction then it should follow that if the jurisdiction of the general [federal] government is limited in both its scope and reach into the matters of the Free and Independent States, then the Supreme Court, being simply a branch of that general government is also restrained by the Constitution to follow the same limitations of power as the federal government as a whole. Since the federal government is limited to certain enumerated objects, then it would behoove us to understand what those enumerated objects consist of and just how they are prescribed for administration.

The People of the Several States exercised their Right to alter or abolish both the governments of their respective States, as well as the federal government. If such power no longer rests within the People of the Several States, but in the federal government, then such construction must be considered completely erroneous not only with regard to the language of the Constitution, but to the very existence of the Constitution. If such were the case then there would be no need for the Constitution to exist at all. There is no branch within the federal government, which can, by its own volition, modify the terms of the Constitution, which governs its operation, and the sphere of its delegated power. There would have been no need to reserve any powers to the States if the States were to be subordinate to the supremacy federal government. It is the powers reserved to the States that provide a mediated check upon the powers exercised by the federal government, otherwise the whole system would have been subversive to the enumeration found within the Constitution.

The common consensus from the Declaration of Independence through the ratification of the Constitution was that the States, by concurrent consent of the People of the Several States, might modify or dissolve the union by the Right of Self-Government. The People have never relinquished that right and in that Right they retrain absolute and complete Sovereignty. The States, by virtue of the Consent and Will of the People, in Constitutional Compact, retained all power to influence the operations of the federal government in order to maintain the security of their Liberty.

The power reserved to the States and the People respectively demonstrates a particular supremacy over the federal government in that Congress can be compelled, by the States, to call a Constitutional Convention that can, based upon the Will and Consent of the People, ratify changes to the federal government without the consent of any branch of the federal government. In terms of strict Constitutional order, the federal government cannot change itself, nor can it change the governments of the States. While the Constitution enumerates those powers reserved to the States to affect the means and manner of operation of the federal government, it does not enumerate such powers to the federal government over the States. It is evident that while powers of the State Constitutions are limited, that limitation is not placed upon them by the federal Constitution, but by the People of the individual States themselves.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly states the extent of judicial power within these United States: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; --to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; --to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; --to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

It should be concluded that the Supreme Court derives no supremacy from the above article of the Constitution; in fact, Article III limits and defines the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It should also be evident that, based upon sound construction, the term “supreme” in reference to the court is in relationship to the “inferior courts” and that no actual supremacy rests within the Supreme Court itself except in that relationship. There is no reference within the Constitution as to the supremacy of the Supreme Court over State Courts or State jurisdiction.

While there has been a tendency for the Supreme Court to operate as though it was indeed the sovereign determinant factor in all matters, the fact is that the Court is little more than a curator of the supremacy within the restrictive spheres of action and is bestowed no powers beyond any other governmental branch. It is however, evident that the Supreme Court has the ability to either impair or enforce the Constitution, but the proper role of the Court is far from that which it now assumes over this land. Thus the supremacy clause is nothing more than the affirmation of the Sovereignty of the People as it is characterized within the Constitutional Compact. Our system of governments, both State and federal, are completely embraced by the Constitutional powers that are delegated and reserved, the supremacy is bestowed coextensively and as such, that supremacy protects the powers delegated to the federal government equally as it protects those powers reserved by the States, otherwise there is no independent supremacy of either the federal or the State governments.

Each is co-dependent upon the other for the supremacy of operation within the very specific and limited spheres of action provided by the Constitution to those entities. There is no independent supremacy granted to any branch of government, otherwise there would have been no need for a Constitutional Compact delineating such powers. If the federal government, or any branch of the federal government had such supreme powers then the efficacy of a Constitutional Compact would have been instantly voided and would contain no practical effect on governing. Thus it is the supremacy of the Constitution, not a political branch of government that imposes limitations on each branch of government to very specific orbits of functionality, with one holding no more supremacy than any other branch within our system of governments. If such supremacy existed within one branch of government, or was extended to one branch then the entire concept of checks and balances would be an exercise in futility.

It is therefore, upon this foundation that the Supreme Court has asserted its power, but it must be remembered, that like every other branch of our system of governments, it too is limited and restricted to its sphere of action. It is not the judgments of the Supreme Court that are the supreme law of the land, but the Constitution and it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to simply determine if laws passed by Congress meet the standards of restrictive qualification within the Constitution. The Supreme Court is equally related to all other portions within government in respect to the limited powers delegated to the federal government and reserved to the States. The Supreme Court cannot be above the very law that created it, but must operate within the qualified limitations imposed upon it by the Constitutional Compact.

Every branch of our system of governments must act within the boundaries enumerated within the Constitution and there is no place within the Constitution that provides for any branch of government to have supremacy over any other branch of government. Neither the federal nor the State governments derive any supremacy over the other, but must act within their specific Constitutional sphere providing a balance within the system that would simply not be possible if such supremacy existed in one or the other parts of government within the system. Each section of our government is supreme within its limited sphere of action, but not beyond that sphere for each branch, and each government, whether federal or State, is bound by the powers delegated or reserved to it.

Thus, the Supreme Court has supremacy limited to its sphere of operation, in other words it can only justify its actions if, while function within the judicial sphere, it annuls an un-Constitutional law legislated by Congress. It is evident therefore, that neither the federal nor the States can place an impediment on the other unless one of those governments overstep their own sphere of operations and intrude upon the delegated authority of the other. Each section of government operates within its own sphere without hindrance from the others unless there is the usurpation of the powers prescribed to the other section of government, and then a hindrance is not only valid, but also absolutely necessary to void the trespass and usurpation. A section within our government cannot exempt itself from the limitations prescribed to it by the Constitution; limited powers cannot become unlimited.

The federal government cannot modify any powers vested in the States, nor can it nullify powers reserved to the States, but each must operate with respect to the powers and responsibilities committed to them by the Constitution. The federal government can claim no supremacy except within the narrow powers prescribed to it, nor are the States subordinate to the federal government in any respect except for those powers the States delegated as the scope of federal power.

Article 6 of the Constitution states an interesting consideration, one that has been taken to construct the word Sovereignty in a very broad sense, yet does it? It has generally been interpreted by the Court, that this clause confers all supremacy on Congress over the States, and thus, all the Sovereignties within those States, i.e. The People. Yet, if logical construction were followed, then there would be no power left to the States to either alter or, in the most extreme necessity revoke the Constitutional Compact. If that is indeed the case, and it appears to be, then the fact that the Constitution, the laws and the treaties are all declared to be the supreme law of the land does not, in any way, bestow any supremacy on the federal government itself, but on the Constitution and the laws pursuant to the Constitution. The federal government is nothing more than the deputized agency utilized to implement Constitutional law. There is no supremacy bestowed on the federal government any more than there is any supremacy bestowed on the State governments, each operate within very specific spheres of operation and reflect, in their character, the supremacy of the People. The Sovereignty of the People is expressed within their governments. The ability to establish government is the single highest expression of the Sovereignty of a People, the character of Sovereignty is also expressed in the ability of the People to alter or destroy their government in order to institute one better suited for their benefit.

It must be completely understood that under Article 6, the so-called supremacy clause, there is absolutely no additionally powers conferred by that Article to the government in any respect than that which is already respectively enumerated. The declaration of supremacy did nothing more than confirm all the enumerated limitations on the powers delegated; it was not a license to extend any powers beyond that which was already enumerated. In other words, while some attempt to construct an almost unlimited degree of power to the federal government under the so-called supremacy clause, the fact is the clause only confirms the restrictive enumerated powers that were delegated to the government. The supremacy is not in the government formed by the enactment of the Constitution, but in the Constitution itself.

Today, it is difficult to grasp the concept that the United States government has absolutely no authority but that, which is specifically provided to it by the Constitutional Compact. In order for any law to be the supreme law of the land it must, by definition, be in complete confirmation of the specific powers delegated within the Constitutional Compact, there can be no question of supremacy without a law meeting such confirmation. If any law does not meet with such qualifications then that law is void and null.

In order to come to a proper conclusion about Constitutional construction, one must understand the concept of restrictive qualification, for our system of government, both federal and those of the States, are guided by the principle of the restrictive qualification of powers committed to them respectively by the Constitution. As such, not only the governments, but within those governments, the various branches are, or should, be guided by the same principle, which essentially delegates authority within very specified spheres of action. Each may exercise the powers delegated to them, but neither can or should act upon the powers delegated to the other. The essential laws of delegation and representation denies the exertion of powers beyond the sphere of active delegation and representation, any attempts to cross those lines of delegated powers amounts to usurpation. Each of the branches of government, as well as the governments of the States, was established to preserve what each represents and to operate within those spheres of delegated authority. Thus each portion of government from the States to the federal government is to provide aggressive checks and balances on all other respective portions of government.

As such, the House of Representatives served the purpose of a direct reflection of the People themselves, while the Senate, on the other hand, represented the States as a reflection of the Free and Independent character of those States. While these two distinct bodies act within a federal sphere of operations, they are indeed not employed by nor beholden to the federal government, but are, in fact, deputized and authorized by the People directly and indirectly respectively. Thus, the establishment of this Constitutional union was conceived and established for the management of the general concerns of the People and the States they inhabit, and not for a supreme or nationalized federal government. The federal government was not the focus of the formation of the union; it was the resulting agency to be utilized, not as other governments of the world in holding a place of supremacy, but to represent the People as they pursued Life, Liberty and Happiness.

The Executive Branch was also established within the sphere of the allocation of powers between the House of Representatives and the Senate, again a restrictive qualification of powers was imposed for the purpose of the execution of powers delegated, but not beyond. Likewise, the Judicial Branch, while given the name Supreme Court, only has the delegated authority to operate within the restrictive qualification of power. The entire system was never intended to be efficient, by definition, but rather, to be cumbersome in hope that there would be more difficulty in the consolidation of powers, particularly in the federal government. The intent was to create a balance of inequalities within the different spheres of operation without the annexation of exclusive or delegated powers.

Unfortunately, what has taken place is a transmutation of Sovereignty, from the People to the government, in particular the federal government, which, by the way, is no longer federal, but national in both character and administration. It is evident that many of the Constitutions of the States assert, and rightly so, that all Sovereignty resides within the People. The changes however came through the Judicial Branch and began rather early in our history as the Supreme Court decided cases that, instead of following the spirit and letter of the Constitution, veered from that course, allowing for the transference of the Sovereignty of the People from each of the Several States into the hands of government.

Just wanted to say, the bottom line is truth.
And the bottom line is the states made America, not vice versa
And the bottom line is making our country better
----these things can not be taken away by any court, for in our hearts there is truth

P.S. I have to chuckle at the notion of the Bill of Rights offering any kind of "assurance" against abuses by an all-powerful government-- as if one written provision is any more "unbreakable" than another.
Unless the People of a state can overrule the government, then the government is the final word.

I know that everyone has an opinion about this-- but they really shouldn't, unless they know what they're talking about.

By law, the ruling sovereign of each state, is the PEOPLE of the particular state.
So it doesn't matter what the law or Constitution or anything else says-- only the People of the state: they can choose to overrule the state or federal government, any way they choose.

One and a quarter MILLION PAGES of Congressional Law, dating back to the day after the signing, all written to undermine the Constitution and some believe debate will be able to fix this. You have got to be kidding.

As a Nevada resident I have done a small amount of research on Nevada statehood process. The enableing act passed by congress calling for a Constitutional Convention in Nevada set as a condition the giving of all "un-appropriated lands to the federal government" I feel that under the US Constitution Article 1 Paragraph 8 sub-paragraph 17 this was an UN-constitutional act. I can assume from the maps showing government lands the same hold true for Utah.

"So what do we do now while they're pretty much laughing at us and our rightful foundational doctrine."

Excellent question - the only thing "We" (the People) can do "forcibly" is Vote to not reelect Legislators/Lawmakers that have dishonored their Oath of Office; today that would be every Legislator, local, State, and federal (Congress). We, the People, are the only entity that can use the ballot box and the ballot box is the only constitutional "force" We have to use against government corruption/usurpation of Officials.

Read and study the Constitution for it is the People's Law (reference the Preamble) to rule government and the People (not government or States) are obligated to enforce it. The Oath of Office is the only constitutional "Will" of the People, for government Officials to do.

When exercising a Duty of Citizenship (ballot & jury boxes) an American's interpretation of the Constitution is supreme over any and all other interpretations.

The 1787 Constitution designates only the People can use the ballot box to elect (hire/fire) Congressmen and do so every two years; reference Article I, Section 2.
Government cannot constitutionally punish an American without first getting permission from two American juries; reference Amendments 4, 5, 6, & 7 of the Bill of Rights.

Allan

I have been debating and trying to inform advocates for Federal Health Care Reform in the 'Comments' sections of numerous local on-line news stories. At least in my area, I've found very few who have knowledge of, or any concern for, our US Constitution. I've also found that those who are willing to at least consider the Constitution as part of the debate usually assert the Commerce Clause and/or the Supremacy Clause in their attempts to justify this power grab. As the debate gets deeper, they usually resort to some liberal lawyer's interpretation or opinion and make their final stand there, knowing that neither of us are lawyers, thus depending on the reliability of 'experts' to settle the matter.
To me, this just begs the question, "Is the law then just a matter of interpretation?" (Or as I've heard someone else so aptly put it, "Are we a nation under the rule of law, or under the rule of lawyers?" That's not said to impugn lawyers). My point is that the standard that we must remain firmly anchored to is ORIGINAL INTENT. Perhaps I've missed some of the articles addressing the poor precedents that have undermined the original intent of the Supremacy and Commerce clauses. Can someone direct me? Thanks.

It is hard to imagine that anyone today seriously doubts just how far from the Constitution the Federal Government has strayed, and how necessary it is that these incursions on State Sovereignty, and effectively, on the freedoms and liberty of our citizens, be turned back and revoked.

The Constitution is adequately clear on the importance of the States being able to nullify Federal Actions which usurp powers not granted to the Fed's. This power is essential to maintaining a truly free society. The problem is only that the States have not exercised their powers of nullification to the extent they were required. As the founders said, it is easier to not rock the boat and cause significant disturbances in our society, than to go after the perpetrators of usurpation. But, it is also wrong, and harmful, and this shameful lack of backbone has already cost us dearly.

The final word is in the Declaration of Independence, which clearly states that the Federal Government's primary responsibility is to "maintain the Rights of the People to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". If the Federal Government fails in this responsibility, it can and must be replaced by the People, who have ultimately the supreme authority. The authority of the States is one of the best means of exercising the people's authority.

Jesse M. Townsley, Jr.
York, PA jesstownsley@gmail.com

Of course the feds will say that any law that they pass pusuant to the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses makes them supreme. These clauses have been abused and perverted to the umpteenth degree, and such abuse was foreseen by many of the anti-Federalists.

Actually, no law suit is needed. All the states need to do is simply refuse to implement it. In order to implement nullification, all a state has to do is consider the law to be unconstitutional. If the feds threaten to withhold federal funding, the states should simply cease collecting all federal taxes within their borders and keep the money for the use of their own citizens. Anything that can be done to poke the feds in the eye in their overreaches of power should be done.

Thank you for this article and thank you for all the brilliant comments. Most of you confirm my suspicion that there are many people like me who do not need a JS to understand the constitution and original intent.
I think it is important to keep in mind that ALL rights are retained by the people. Only those privileges ceded to the Federal government give them any power and they are clearly defined and limited. I love the line in the article, "When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”
You can tell our forefathers did not like "implied powers."
One more point. I determine what my rights are, not the government. The Constitution is not concerned with defining rights. It is only concerned with clearly defining those enumerated powers that clearly point out what government may permissively do in order to protect those rights. I (we the people) retain those rights. As long as what I consider as a right does not harm another, I am on solid ground. Government, like a little child, may ask what it can do and it will find that answer in the Constitution and the "laws' commensurate with it. Anything else is unacceptable.

Excellent article. Let us continue to get the word out and challenge the power mad progressives at every turn!!!

To interpret the supremacy clause as "clear that federal law is supreme over state law" is to say that it stands in immediate and comprehensive contradiction to the 10th Amendment and that the Constitution has always contained this glaring and irreconcilable contradiction. This is a preposterous idea.

I heard a law professor argue that insurance would fall within the ambit of the Commerce Clause, whereby the federal government can legislate whatever is involved in interstate commerce, which it seems insurance issues would be. That being said, the federal government has perverted the Commerce Clause to pretty much include anything at all the government wishes to legislate, because it would be rare in this society for something to not be involved in interstate commerce. What products or services are left in this country that are strictly local? Even mom and pop stores buy and/or sell products from across state lines, subjecting them to federal legislation.

We The People get it so easily, and I note that those only interested in maintaining present power are objecting and don't get it.
The Constitution is The Supreme Law of The Land.
Maybe the objectors would like to move to a foreign country, better suited to their love affair with themselves...
That which gives us our rights is obviously under heavy attack here.
Maybe Russia or China would like some refugees...
After winning this war on freedom, it might be a good idea to address the basis of a lot of other 'things' (legislation) that have been 'required' by the fed.
At this point in time I offer that IF cessation is not implemented immediately, a very real war of force will ensue. All states must offer resistance en-mass, collectively, or just give it all up.
First you hear it in talk, then speeches, and finally offered as legislation.
States MUST offer direct action to stop any and all fed intrusion into states. Penalties need to be severe enough that real thought goes into any action the fed considers. Put a few of them in jail, heavy fines, and go after the agency they came from.
Legislation anyone?
A part of all this not being stated is that it is possible to use the structured process to enforce The Constitution by the states regarding unconstitutional actions by the fed. When a majority has passed it, then call for it to be made an integral part of the basis of federal law...
The article contains a lot that has needed to be said, yet leaves out these parts mentioned here.
Now the states need to show us all if they got what it takes by standing up.

The bottom line is apparent. Feds flagrantly break existing laws protecting sovereignty and good luck to us gaining cooperation from rogues. However much we disseminate according to our laws they will continue sandbagging the exits and simply continue encroaching on our most basic freedoms according to their gameplan in this relentless manner.
This examination implies their cooperation which the houses have no intention of doing, regardless of how correct we are.
So what do we do now while they're pretty much laughing at us and our rightful foundational doctrine.

My question here? Is this being done to distract us from an even bigger picture? Maybe that the US is being swallowed up in the Global Perspective. The USA is losing it's sovereignty to others as a whole? Might this be interntional? Nothing like good infighting to distract from a larger picture. Think?

I fear that many readers may be led astray by this article and others like it. All acts of Congress are presumed to be constitutional unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Nothing in the 10th amendment gives states or citizens thereof power to nullify constitutional acts of Congress-- the Supremacy Clause makes that clear. Other than a lawful challenge in court, any "act" by a state, any other purported government or citizen organization which purports to nullify an act of Congress is frivolous and treasonous.

As I understand it, sometime ago, Pelosi was asked how Congress could demand that we( the public) buy insurance...she could not say on the spot (no surprise) but got back to the journalist saying that it would be through commerce laws... First off, the Commerce laws are also null and void... Congress has no authority (jurisdiction) outside of the ten square miles of the District of Columbia., forts and territories.. Commerce is a state issue not fed. Second, the UCC 1-207, is remedy for the missuse of their alleged authority through social security numbers, zip codes, strawman use of birth certificates, drivers license, license plates and the loss of land patent and allodial title... In otherwords, what I am saying is that we no longer have much say about what "our" government is doing. Particularly since they became a corporation....http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_0... number 15 of this document of legal definitions reads:(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
When did the federal government become a corporation? And doesn't this imply that they are now (and obvously have been) answering only to their board of Directors and stock holders... AND who are they?
Apparently not us>>>
And are they so smug in their legalese that they think they can just trample us? Sounds like people are getting pissed... So maybe, just maybe it ain't over till the lady sings.

As everyone here probably is aware,when the Court examines cases they are supposed to look at the ORIGINAL INTENT that our founders had when writing any part of the Constitution that has relevance to their case.Because our Courts have instead ruled based on their personal "feelings"or even what they think is the "feeling"of the country they have tons of prior cases that were not based on original intent.I assume that they will again skip this procedure when they receive the first HC cases.

"...and that the legal profession is either in the tank for the federal government..."

That says it all IMO. Most law professors are Liberals, ergo they will interpret the Constitution to obtain the result they seek and support, i.e. Obamacare is Constitutional.

That is why it is so important to deny federal judgeship to those that are not originalists.