@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
This article showcases an annoying tradition at the New York Times. When one side of an issue is talking sense, and the other is talking bogus, the Times is hell-bent to "present both sides of the issue", rather than exposing the bogus to their readers.
[The NY Times shud be the arbiter of truth or bogusness? David] A look at article 6, section 4 of the US constitution is enough to debunk each of the particular states rights advocates they are citing.
Quote: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.
Source
How is that affected by the subsequent Bill of Rights?
Note that Article 5 refers to laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof,
NOT in conflict therewith.
Note that insofar as domestic production of goods is concerned,
that woud facially appear to negate any jurisdiction from the interstate commerce clause.
Note that speaking as an American citizen,
I cannot accept the reasoning of
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), which does violence to simple logic.
These challenges to federal jd will give the USSC an opportunity
to rid us of that abomination.
David
