Joel is a libertarian. We go the rounds often.
Your statement “Why can’t our Nation agree that what is constitutional is … what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says.” is total nonsense.
Do you honestly believe the founding fathers left the entire government of the United States and its laws up to a few lawyers wearing black robes and pounding wooden hammers to declare what they want the Constitution to say? The Founders wrote the Constitution in plain language, but it is admitted that some things are not exactly spelled out.
I challenge you to find anywhere in the Constitution which leaves it up to the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution words mean. It simply does not exist. It is not lawful. It is not logical. The Supreme Court has merely usurped that authority and it has gone on for so long that we accept that as fact. You have been brainwashed. I know you take umbrage at that statement, but if you believe something that isn’t true then you have been brainwashed. Or at least mal-educated.
The founding fathers set up three coequal branches of government, each of which was to be a check on the other two. Unfortunately Congress and the American people have come to just blindly accept what the Supreme Court says regardless of how ridiculous it is.
Take two glaring blatant examples; abortion and ObamaCare. You can search in vain for anything in the Constitution remotely related to the right to kill a baby in the womb. It simply doesn’t exist. Likewise, you can search in vain for the authority of the government to require anyone to buy any product, let alone health insurance. Again, it simply does not exist. The Supreme Court made that up out of whole cloth trying to avoid looking like they were racist by declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional. And most of the Supreme Court had an agenda to impose national healthcare on the people. That unconstitutional ruling alone caused me to lose my healthcare which I could afford and I was happy with.
The court is populated by a some people who are not constitutionalists. They have an agenda. The Constitution says in plain language that if it is not enumerated in the Constitution then that right belongs to the states and to the people. The powers clause gives the federal government certain responsibilities and authority. If it is not in those powers then that right belongs to the states or to the people to determine themselves what they want to do about certain things.
Your interpretation is that the federal government is supreme and their authority is supreme. That is simply nonsense. You appear to believe the oft repeated mantra that federal law trumps state law. That is simply not true. The Constitution trumps any other law which is made and if it is in opposition to what the Constitution says then that law is null and void from its inception. The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land, says so. And that includes abortion and ObamaCare.
Can you define a “act of Congress”? It is defined in the United States code. Read the attachments to find the definition.
Here it is, expounded upon in the attachments:
- 18 USC Rule 54(c) (pre-2002 revision) �Application of terms: �Act of Congress� includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession”. This plain definition used to be at the above statute. IN 2002 they deliberately revised it and moved it to Rule 1 to obscure its meaning. The footnote to the above statute now says �Rule 1(b) is composed of material currently located in Rule 54(c), with several exceptions. First, the reference to an ”Act of Congress” has been deleted from the restyled rules; instead the rules use the self-explanatory term ”federal statute.” Too many people were discovering this limitation on “act of congress”, therefore they are trying to hide the plain meaning.
As explained in the attachments with supporting documentation, the federal government can pass laws which pertain to the territories and insular possessions such as military bases and post offices which actually belong to the federal government. If they do not belong to the federal government then the federal government has no jurisdiction or authority over them. The states have complete control over everything within their borders. Unfortunately, the state legislatures are ignorant of that fact. Very few so-called lawmakers know that or believe it or will enforce it.
One thing that really rankles me is the federal government passes a law called the Endangered Species Act and then claims they have authority over wildlife within the states. You can search in vain in the Constitution for the word wildlife or anything remotely related thereto and it doesn’t exist. Therefore, if it does not exist in the Constitution then that right belongs to the states and to the people.
Constitution: Article [IX] (Amendment 9 – Unenumerated Rights)
The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X] (Amendment 10 – Reserved Powers)
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.
The Wyoming Constitution clearly states all wildlife within the state of Wyoming belongs to Wyoming. But the federal government dumps a non-native Canadian wolf in here and destroys our moose population and we are supposed to just meekly bow our heads and say “yes Massa”. The founding fathers could conceive of no such blatant example of tyranny.
read the below citations to support what I said above;
The federal government, our Congress and President, pass a law. We think it applies to us within one of the 50 states. IT DOES NOT! We obey that law as if it applies to us. That gives the feds power over our lives and power over Wyoming and other states, which are supposed to be “sovereign states”. This is how the feds put a wolf in Wyoming and demand that we not kill them, even though they are destroying our moose population. This is how the USDA Forest Service administers Wyoming land and we think we have no say-so about their mis-management. This is how a myriad of federal alphabet-agencies control much of our lives.
17th Clause of Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which says:
“The Congress shall have power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” [Emphasis added.]
18 USC Rule 54(c) (pre-2002 revision) “Application of terms: “Act of Congress” includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession”. This plain definition used to be at the above statute. Very recently they deliberately revised it and moved it to Rule 1 to obscure its meaning. The footnote to the above statute now says “Rule 1(b) is composed of material currently located in Rule 54(c), with several exceptions. First, the reference to an ”Act of Congress” has been deleted from the restyled rules; instead the rules use the self-explanatory term ”federal statute.” Too many people were discovering this, therefore they are trying to hide the plain meaning.
“It is a well established principle of law that all federal “legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears;” see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). This particular principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding Marine Mammals Protection Act as territorial); Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (holding commission’s subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v. Secretary of H.E.W., 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding Securities Act as territorial). If all are “territorial”, where is federal power within a state?
They [federal agents] cannot put their foot in a state to claim jurisdiction without its consent. No principle is more familiar than this, that, whilst a state has granted a portion of its sovereign power to the United States, it remains in the enjoyment of all the sovereignty which it has not voluntarily parted with. Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan et al., 3 How. 212 (1845):
” The laws of congress in respect to those matters [the protection of person and property] 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. Caha v. United States, 152 US 211 (1894)
New York v. United States 120 L Ed 2D 120 (1992): (25) States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. The Constitution instead “leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,” The Federalist No. 39, p 245 (C Rosssiter ed 1961), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment. (8c, 26, 27) Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear. The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
But clearly it [the Constitution] does not grant to Congress any legislative control over the States, [emphasis added] and must, so far as they are concerned, be limited to authority over the property belonging to the United States within their limits.” Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1906)
“jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown and will not be presumed.” Special Indem. Fund v Prewitt, 205 F2d 306, 201 OK. 308
The police power is vested in the States and not the federal government. See Wilkerson v. Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 554, 11 S.Ct. 865, 866 (1891)
“Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of this authority.” Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, 33 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947).
Wyoming Statute prohibits federal agents from administering programs within Wyoming geographical boundaries.
Wyoming Statutes Title 36 “Public Lands” Chapter 12 “State Control of Certain Lands” declares Wyoming jurisdiction over “all land and water within the exterior boundaries of the state of Wyoming”. “…all federal land in the state…. and all water and mineral rights …….are the exclusive property of the state and subject to its jurisdiction and control.” See full Attachment appended.
Wyoming’s wildlife belongs exclusively to Wyoming. The United States Government agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, has no jurisdiction over Wyoming’s wildlife until they can prove their jurisdiction in court, according to Supreme Court rulings. Until such time as they do that, the Governor, Legislature, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department should take complete control over all wildlife within the borders of the State of Wyoming, and should manage that wildlife, including so-called ‘endangered species’, for the benefit of Wyoming Citizens. The Governor could make such a declaration NOW, that, based on the above Supreme Court rulings, Wyoming will immediately begin to manage all wildlife within its borders, exclusive of Federal interference. The USFWS would then have to go to court to try and prove jurisdiction, which is something we don’t believe they can do.
“…must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended. ….in view of our complex society, [it] would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.1624 (1995).