“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 that 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.” – Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

Recently I attended a gun show, where I handed out information material and answered questions on the Tenth Amendment Center.  Several people were concerned about the U.S. making a treaty that would gut the U.S. Constitution and potentially take away firearms from law abiding citizens here in the U.S.  They argued that the paragraph above from the Constitution places treaty law above the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Our Founders very clearly stated the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution could be amended, or changed, in Article 5.  It is quite illogical to conceive that our Founders would write such a brilliant document to be the foundation of our union, only to create a giant backdoor for foreign governments to come in and destroy the liberty we had worked so hard to achieve.   In fact, our Founders themselves said otherwise.

“The only constitutional exception to the power of making treaties is that it shall not change the Constitution…” – Alexander Hamilton

“I do not conceive that power is given to the President or the Senate to dismember the empire, or alienate any great, essential right.  I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.”  – James Madison

“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty-making power to be boundless.  If it is, then we have no Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

So, when I began re-reading this section of the Constitution I realized that they didn’t leave a backdoor, but in fact were expressly forbidding this type of maneuver in Article VI.  The answer to the riddle that confuses many people isn’t to be found in an indecipherable tome on constitutional law, but instead in simple English grammar and a little attention to detail.

In reading through the entire Constitution, you will notice that whenever the Constitution refers to itself the verbiage “this Constitution” is used.  The only exceptions to this are the President’s Oath of Office, where the phrase “the Constitution of the United States” is used, and here in the latter part of Article VI.  In every other place where you find the word Constitution written in the Constitution itself, it is preceded by the word “this” making it clear that the Constitution is referring to itself.  In the President’s Oath of Office the phrase “Constitution of the United States” makes it perfectly clear that the phrase is referring to this Constitution as well.

The Founders were very clear and precise with their use of language in the Constitution, so why do we have “the Constitution” in this case (“any Thing in THE Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”), and “this Constitution” in all other cases where the word is written.  The simple answer is that in this case, they were not referring to the United States Constitution at all.

The humble preposition is the key to solving the intent of the Founders in this statement.  A prepositional phrase – such as of, to, or in – is a word that can modify and indicate relationships.  Prepositional phrases can also modify more than one object.  In this case, the prepositional phrase “of any State” refers to both the words “Constitution” and “Laws” that precede the phrase.  This means that the final phrase of this clause could rightly be read to mean “any Thing in the Constitution of any State or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Founders weren’t saying that treaties were to be supreme over the U.S. Constitution, but that they could and would take precedence over the state constitutions and laws.

It is clear with a little analysis of the details of the language and grammar used to construct this clause that our Founders were placing treaty law in its rightful place – beneath the supreme law of the land in the form of our U.S. Constitution, but above the laws and constitutions of the states.  There is no loophole that can allow international interests to trump the U.S. Constitution, but the treaty must be made in pursuance of our Constitution, just as all laws that Congress makes must be in pursuance of the Constitution.

While some well-meaning (and not-so-well-meaning) politicians may claim that they can legislate via treaty, this clearly was not the intent of our Founders.  Will this knowledge stop those who would seek to take our freedoms from shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass such treaties?  Probably not.  But we can rest firm in the knowledge that our Founders did not give the Federal government the power to usurp the Constitution by treaty, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not treaty law.  More importantly, we can use this knowledge as intellectual firepower to stop the enemies of liberty and the Second Amendment from doing so.

Lesley Swann is the state coordinator for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center and founder of the East Tennessee 10th Amendment Group. She is a native of Anderson County, Tennessee.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Lincoln plays trump card

Most colleges in the United States teach students about the Supremacy Clause. This references the second clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. Article VI is composed of 3 clauses which read;

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The first clause was a reassurance to the rest of the world the new government being formed under the Constitution intended to fully honor the debts owed while organized under the Confederation. It was not uncommon for countries to consider their debts null and void simply by restructuring their government under new operating guidelines or people. The framers had no desire to renege on debts owed so, although this has little meaning for us today, it was a very important clause for those involved in foreign affairs including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, each serving oversees as representatives of their new country.

Found within the third clause is a requirement for taking an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, although it was not meant to be a religious test. Today’s politicians and civil servants who take an oath do so in mostly a perfunctory manner. There are many who have taken an Oath of Office who do take it seriously yet amongst the modern day politicians it is hard to find many who truly are concerned about the oath since we the people fail to hold them accountable if they defy their oath.

Framers and founders understood the oath to be extremely serious. It was a promise to not only their fellow man but to whatever form their God happened to be, which is why the clarification about a religious test was necessary. Anyone taking an oath in a perfunctory manner was considered to be committing perjury, a very serious situation which easily could lead to impeachment or removal from their job. Lets take a quick look at the definition of oath from the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language;

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required bylaw; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature. (Emphasis added)

Each time the oath is given, each time a person swears to support our federalist republic as prescribed within the Constitution it should be an extremely humbling and honorable event. It is so special framers insured it was a part of every public servants agreement with those who were entrusting them with their voice. After all, within the second clause we see the supreme law of the land is not a man but a written agreement among men or what W. Cleon Skousen refers to as People’s Law in his work, The 5000 Year Leap.

The object of the Founders was to discover the ”balanced center” between these two extremes (tyranny and anarchy). They recognized that under the chaotic confusion of anarchy there is “no law,” whereas at the other extreme the law is totally dominated by the ruling power and is therefore “Ruler’s Law.” What they wanted was a system of “People’s Law,” where the government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people. (p. 10)

For this new system to work supremacy would have to be established in each level of governing duty.   At the federal level the Constitution and the Laws of the United States were declared supreme over states, counties, wards, and individual people. This is pretty much the way it is taught, it may well sound familiar to those who recently completed a civics class. Not only was it critical for maintaining the balanced center between tyranny and anarchy, it was so critical nearly every citizen would raise their hand and swear an oath to defend it against foreign foes and domestic foes. However, the title of this article is state nullification trumps federal supremacy.  How can that be?

States and people are not subservient to the federal government. After the Constitutional Convention members (the framers) completed their efforts on Sept. 17^th, 1787 there was a long ratification process. The proposed Constitution was sent to the states and people debated across the United States over whether they would accept this as supreme when laws were made in Pursuance thereof. If laws are not made based on the enumerated guidance of our Constitution nullification by the states and people is not only a trump card, it is a sworn duty secured clearly within the 10^th Amendment of the Bill of Rights and within every Oath of Office including the office of citizen.

While teaching the Supremacy Clause most civic teachers do not emphasize this portion yet the framers used a capital letter to show how important Pursuance is to maintaining the balance of People’s Law. As long as the federal laws are following the enumerated process of the Constitution it is supreme and states, as well as the people, will honor those laws as supreme. However, any laws not following the process found in the Constitution are not supreme.

It is up to every branch of government to check all other branches to insure federal laws are not unconstitutional while the federal government also helps insure states are operating within their responsible areas as republics. Some professors want to teach the notion only the three federal branches check each other and the Supreme Court is the supreme word on the constitutionality of both federal and state laws.

However, in a true federalist republic it would be foolish, as well as dangerous, to consider the federal branches as the supremebranches that make a determination on whether their laws will be master of states, counties, wards, and individuals. Our framers and founders understood the danger of a purely horizontal check on legislation. This would result in an oligarchy which is closer to Ruler’s Law, or tyranny, than People’s Law, or liberty. During the Virginia Ratification Debates, on June 7^th, 1788, Francis Corbin stated it clearly when he said;

The extent of the United States cannot render this government oppressive. The powers of the general government are only of a general nature, and their object is to protect, defend, and strengthen the United States; but the internal administration of government is left to the state legislatures, who exclusively retain such powers as will give the states the advantages of small republics, without the danger commonly attendant on the weakness of such governments.

There is a vertical check as well as horizontal checks. The state legislature and governors are bound by their oath to defend the Constitution through a vertical check which insures the general government is performing their duties while leaving the states responsible for their duties. Should the federal and state legislatures’ checks fail in their duty the people themselves must defend the Constitution. Federalism strengthens small republics while taking advantage of democracy at the local, community level as well as through the voice of the people represented in the general and state legislatures.

State nullification trumps any federal law determined to be beyond constitutional processes. When a state determines a federal law is unconstitutional and they pass legislation making the federal law null and void within their state it is not rebellion. It is not defiance of some supreme federal overlord. It is a matter of upholding a solemn oath, which is why the oath is also a part of Article VI. This is true whether your civics teacher taught it this way or not. The only thing you must ask yourself is will you uphold your oath and will you support your state when the legislators and governor uphold theirs?

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.”

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

When Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed HO391 into law on 17 March 2010, the “national” news media circled the wagons and began another assault on State sovereignty. The bill required the Idaho attorney general to sue the federal government over insurance mandates in the event national healthcare legislation passed. The lead AP reporter on the story, John Miller, quoted constitutional “scholar” David Freeman Engstrom of Stanford Law School as stating that the Idaho law would be irrelevant because of the “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution.

In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.

Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct, and Idaho and the thirty seven other States considering similar legislation have a strong case based on the original intent of the powers of the federal government vis-à-vis the States.

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.

A quick reading of the Constitution illustrates that national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, so obviously Engstrom’s blanket and simplistic statement is blatantly incorrect, but his distortion of the supremacy clause goes further.

The inclusion of such a clause in the Constitution was first debated at the Constitutional Convention on 31 May 1787. In Edmund Randolph’s initial proposal, called the Virginia Plan, the “national” legislature had the ability to “legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent” and “to negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the Articles of Union.” John Rutledge, Pierce Butler, and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina challenged the word “incompetent” and demanded that Randolph define the term. Butler thought that the delegates “were running into an extreme, in taking away the powers of the states” through such language.

Randolph replied that he “disclaimed any intention to give indefinite powers to the national legislature, declaring that he was entirely opposed to such an inroad on the state jurisdictions, and that he did not think any considerations whatever could ever change his determination [emphasis added].” James Madison, the author of the Virginia Plan, was not as forthcoming as to his sentiment. Ultimately, Madison preferred a negative over State law and wished the national legislature to be supreme in call cases. But he was not in the majority.

The Convention again broached a federal negative on State law on 8 June 1787. Charles Pinckney, who presented a draft of a constitution shortly after Randolph offered the Virginia Plan, believed a national negative necessary to the security of the Union, and Madison, using imagery from the solar system and equating the sun to the national government, argued that without a national negative, the States “will continually fly out of their proper orbits, and destroy the order and harmony of the political system.” Such symbolism made for a beautiful picture, but it belied reality.

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.”

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was against an unlimited negative, and Gunning Bedford of Delaware believed a national negative was simply intended “to strip the small states of their equal right of suffrage.” He asked, “Will not these large states crush the small ones, whenever they stand in the way of their ambitious or interested views?”

When the negative power was put to a vote, seven States voted against it and three for it, with Delaware divided (and Virginia only in the affirmative by one vote). Roger Sherman of Connecticut summarized the sentiment of the majority when he stated he “thought the cases in which the negative ought to be exercised might be defined.” Since the negative did not pass, such a definition was unnecessary.

Thus, the federal government was supreme only in its enumerated powers and it did not have a negative over State law. Supremacy had limits.

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].”

Furthermore, in a foreshadowing of nullification, Iredell argued that, “It appears to me merely a general clause, the amount of which is that, when they [Congress] pass an act, if it be in the execution of a power given by the Constitution, it shall be binding on the people, otherwise not [emphasis added]. Other ratifying conventions had similar debates, and proponents of the Constitution continually reassured wavering supporters that the Constitution would only be supreme within its delegated authority.

Most bought their assurances, though to staunch opponents, the Constitution still vested too much power in the central authority. The States would lose their sovereignty, they argued, and as a result, these men demanded an amendment to the Constitution that expressly maintained the sovereignty of the States and placed limits on federal power. Even several moderate supporters of the Constitution embraced this idea.

Ultimately, the three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.

Several other constitutional “scholars” have weighed in on the debate in the last week, and each has invoked the “supremacy clause” to defend their opposition to State action against healthcare. Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel went so far as to suggest that the States are not reading the Tenth Amendment correctly. In perhaps the most outlandish statement of the debate, he also said, “Any talk of nullification bothers me because it’s talk of lawlessness.”

I guess Mr. Siegel has failed to consider that Idaho bill HO391 was passed by a legitimate legislative body elected by the people of the State. That would make it lawful.

Of course, this debate ultimately boils down to loose interpretation verses strict construction. Thomas Jefferson had the best line on this issue. When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”

The original intent of both the “supremacy clause” and the Tenth Amendment indicate that Idaho and the other States challenging Obamacare are justified and correct and that the legal profession is either in the tank for the federal government or has not read either the debates of the Constitutional Convention and/or the State ratifying debates. This should make people like Engstrom and Siegel, rather than legitimate State law directed at unconstitutional authority, irrelevant.

Brion McClanahan holds a Ph.D in American history from the University of South Carolina and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009).

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 10^th 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.”

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.

But here’s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:

…the Constitution’s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it…

A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.

There are two main points to make here:

1. The “supremacy clause” does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution.

2. We know that this is the case because Monica’s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim.

So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.” And that happens far more often than not.

Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so they’re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times.