Surprise: Law Professor Misinterprets Supremacy Clause

Have you ever read an article that you were not sure what stance the author takes on the subject but presents both sides of the argument at once? I had the distinguished experience recently when I was reading the article titled “Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control” on the Newsmax website (see: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gun-Control-Pushback/2013/01/17/id/471825). It was a little confusing until I got about half way through it and read a quote by Sam Kamin.

Sam is a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. One would think that if someone was a law professor that they would actually know and understand the law. Or in this case, a constitutional law professor – who should then know and understand the constitution. It is highly unfortunate when people like Sam misspeak about a subject. Their title gives them some credibility so people think what they say is true because they are supposedly an “expert”. But, when they make a mistake it is still a mistake.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Clause 2 reads:

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sam makes the comment that state legislatures can pass any laws they want but that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes such actions unconstitutional. He further states that when there is a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme. Nothing could be farther from the truth. His blanket statement implies that the state laws are not necessary and state governments are not necessary because the federal government and its laws are supreme.

Details

DC Dependency – The Real Danger

Congressman Rush Holt earlier this month proposed an amendment that would prevent federal dollars from funding police departments that resort to profiling Muslim citizens without probable cause as a tool in combating terrorism. The amendment was defeated largely along party lines.

Once again, the federal government has managed to force us to fight the wrong battle on yet another issue, terrorism. The NYPD’s methods of investigation, whether wrong or right, have been subject not to the will of the people of New York City, but conflicting forms of statism in DC.  The recent appearance on Fox News by NY Post columnist Michael Goodwin and subsequent article by Noah Rothman on Mediaite give evidence of this.

Details

DC is Busy

But not on anything you would expect from a government adhering to the Constitution. Healthcare, financial markets, petroleum exploration and extraction, economic activity, immigration, national ID cards, cap and trade, smoking, transfats & salt, CAFE; gun control, taxes, price controls on labor, electricity, and banking. The list goes on. No matter how well intentioned, there…

Details

Congressional 10th Amendment Task Force can’t have Two Gods

Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it is not. The current Constitutional 10th Amendment Task Force is undeniably stuck in a conundrum. The GOP members have traveled their districts, touting their conservative principles, family values, etc., and now, they have a problem. How do you tell your constituents that now…

Details

Obama Bashing and Bigger Fish to Fry

Can we finally agree that in general, “Obama” isn’t at issue and we could honestly care less who he is or what he supposedly represents, or where he was born for that matter. I’m honestly disgusted and more than tired of the name calling in response to opposition to democratic ideas. What are you people…

Details

Constitution be damned?

That’s just the political reality we face today, writes John Tamny: Throughout this decade, under Presidents Bush and Obama, economic “stimulus” packages have similarly been foisted on the U.S. economy by a federal government possessing nothing not already taxed or borrowed from the private sector. Nothing in the Constitution mentions “economic growth” as one of…

Details

Health Care and the Constitution

In his recent Christian Science Monitor editorial, Anthony Gregory asks the essential question – the one that politicians in D.C. almost never bring up – Is it Constitutional for Obama force you to buy health insurance? Anthony’s short answer is spot on – “Nothing in the Constitution allows the individual mandate he proposes.”  Here’s a…

Details