Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
They can't override the Supremacy Clause.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
If they try, they'd be attempting to ignore one part of the Constitution to "protect" a perceived right in another.
Morons.
|
Since this is an attempt to enforce the Constitution, not violate it, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vellatri
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't need to guess at what they thought. They wrote it down for those of us that learned to read.
|
Um yeah. On an off note...that's really a pretty stupid remark. I know you're not stupid...but that statement sure is. |
All I did in the post prior to that one was repeat what the authors had already written. There was no guesswork involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vellatri
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If Congress didn't want 2A to include nukes, they should have ratified the Constitution when nukes were created. Same with tanks, full autos, etc. They didn't, so nukes, tanks, and full autos are technically legal for private ownership. If you don't want 2A to include nukes, you should write a "WTF" letter to your Congressmen.
|
And that's a pretty intelligent statement, tbh. |
Thank you. It's simply the result of being logically consistent. If "arms" means, well, "arms," then it is apparent that this would be the only legal course of action. Anything else is void
ab initio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humerox
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The Constitution isn't clear and the courts haven't specifically addressed the question yet.
|
Really? The prefatory clause removes all doubt when it explains the purpose of the operative clause. Anything available to the government (of, by, and for the people) is to be available to the people. Else a free state cannot be secured.