<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 12:46:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: onetenther</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-23223</link>
		<dc:creator>onetenther</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:16:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-23223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@jettabear The Supreme court has said states can&#039;t ban firearms yet many states are defying it anyways.  Where is the outrage from those who think the federal government is superior to states?  It just seems kind of selective when you can decide over what issues the states should comply with SCOTUS and what issues they can&#039;t.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@jettabear The Supreme court has said states can&#8217;t ban firearms yet many states are defying it anyways.  Where is the outrage from those who think the federal government is superior to states?  It just seems kind of selective when you can decide over what issues the states should comply with SCOTUS and what issues they can&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onetenther</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-23222</link>
		<dc:creator>onetenther</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-23222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@jettabear There is really nothing the courts can do if a state decides to ignore any of its decisions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@jettabear There is really nothing the courts can do if a state decides to ignore any of its decisions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onetenther</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-23221</link>
		<dc:creator>onetenther</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-23221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@jettabear  Do you mean this section?  
 
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;
 
You will notice the first clause mentions the constitution and the second clause is laws made in pursuance of.  Since states must honor the constitutions and federal law then their is a possibility that a federal law which they are suppose to uphold may conflict with their other obligation which is to uphold the constitution.   A law that says a person can&#039;t practice Islam would be a federal law and it would also be unconstitutional which would put them into conflict with each other.  Why should any state enforce that law when they are also required to uphold the constitution at the same time?  They now have a choice and since the constitution is the superior to any federal law they must side on the constitution not the federal law that is in violation of it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@jettabear  Do you mean this section?  <br />
 <br />
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;<br />
 <br />
You will notice the first clause mentions the constitution and the second clause is laws made in pursuance of.  Since states must honor the constitutions and federal law then their is a possibility that a federal law which they are suppose to uphold may conflict with their other obligation which is to uphold the constitution.   A law that says a person can&#8217;t practice Islam would be a federal law and it would also be unconstitutional which would put them into conflict with each other.  Why should any state enforce that law when they are also required to uphold the constitution at the same time?  They now have a choice and since the constitution is the superior to any federal law they must side on the constitution not the federal law that is in violation of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jettabear</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-23206</link>
		<dc:creator>jettabear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:27:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-23206</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[onetenther, it seems your a little paranoid about yourself, not the States.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>onetenther, it seems your a little paranoid about yourself, not the States.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jettabear</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-23205</link>
		<dc:creator>jettabear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-23205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Separation of Powers is the relationship between the federal legislation (congress) and the judiciary (U.S. Supreme court). This means Congress cannot re-define a ruling passed down by the U.S. Supreme court. You guys need to step up your game, this is just to easy for me. No really, it is just to easy. duh!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Separation of Powers is the relationship between the federal legislation (congress) and the judiciary (U.S. Supreme court). This means Congress cannot re-define a ruling passed down by the U.S. Supreme court. You guys need to step up your game, this is just to easy for me. No really, it is just to easy. duh!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jettabear</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-23204</link>
		<dc:creator>jettabear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-23204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only the U.S. Supreme Court can rule if the federal govt. laws are unconstitutional. Until then, states must follow federal law. If they refuse they are then not following the constitution under article VI, clause 2.  Seems pretty clear to me so what&#039;s the problem.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only the U.S. Supreme Court can rule if the federal govt. laws are unconstitutional. Until then, states must follow federal law. If they refuse they are then not following the constitution under article VI, clause 2.  Seems pretty clear to me so what&#8217;s the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jettabear</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-23202</link>
		<dc:creator>jettabear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 06:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-23202</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[only the u.s. supreme court can over rule the federal government. so yes, states must follow all federal laws until the supreme court rules otherwise. duh!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>only the u.s. supreme court can over rule the federal government. so yes, states must follow all federal laws until the supreme court rules otherwise. duh!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: onetenther</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-22876</link>
		<dc:creator>onetenther</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-22876</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.&quot; 
 
Here is a way to send that argument right back at them which is to first acknowledge that this is true.  In fact, it is true but point out that the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE ONLY HAS A FEW POWERS to write laws to begin with so there supreme authority over the states is limited to those few areas.  This is something every &#039;tenther&#039; should acknowledge but In regard to every other power the states are supreme.  We really do not need a tenth amendment to point that out since it would seem that this is the only construction of the constitution we can make.  I agree with others that the tenth amendment is serves as a defining rule of how separate powers should be treated and as a rule of construction for the entire constitution. 
 
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will never fully acknowledge that so it is up to states to use their muscle to enforce their own constitutional rights.  I really feel that a real war is beginning to brew between the states again.  I feel this because just try buying ammo at a local gun store!  You can&#039;t.  People sucked it up and the ammo they are buying is bulk ammo which isn&#039;t used for hunting!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.&#8221; <br />
 <br />
Here is a way to send that argument right back at them which is to first acknowledge that this is true.  In fact, it is true but point out that the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE ONLY HAS A FEW POWERS to write laws to begin with so there supreme authority over the states is limited to those few areas.  This is something every &#8216;tenther&#8217; should acknowledge but In regard to every other power the states are supreme.  We really do not need a tenth amendment to point that out since it would seem that this is the only construction of the constitution we can make.  I agree with others that the tenth amendment is serves as a defining rule of how separate powers should be treated and as a rule of construction for the entire constitution. <br />
 <br />
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will never fully acknowledge that so it is up to states to use their muscle to enforce their own constitutional rights.  I really feel that a real war is beginning to brew between the states again.  I feel this because just try buying ammo at a local gun store!  You can&#8217;t.  People sucked it up and the ammo they are buying is bulk ammo which isn&#8217;t used for hunting!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sissy_48</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-22911</link>
		<dc:creator>sissy_48</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-22911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@TenthAmendment Please tell me this is a GOOD THING!? Sick of &quot;All bad News!?:&#039;-(]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@TenthAmendment Please tell me this is a GOOD THING!? Sick of &#8220;All bad News!?:&#8217;-(</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GoodDaysMC</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/surprise-law-professor-misinterprets-supremacy-clause/#comment-22872</link>
		<dc:creator>GoodDaysMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2013 11:56:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=14704#comment-22872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@SartorBob @TenthAmendment If you want the Truth, then learn the laws under Fraud, As Ignorance, is also addressed in our laws!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@SartorBob @TenthAmendment If you want the Truth, then learn the laws under Fraud, As Ignorance, is also addressed in our laws!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
