There are two kinds of experts; those who do not know whereof they speak but speak as if they do and those that do know where of they speak. But the latter is not the case found in the editorial of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on March 15, 2013. The editorialist thought he knows the Constitution and the expert proved that he didn’t know what he says he knows.

Republican legislators had the audacity to create bills that defy the federal do it or else mandates. The legislation tells the feds that if the state doesn’t like their unconstitutional laws, the state will simply tell them to take a hike. That has inflamed the “big government feds are supreme contingent” into showing what they do not know; and it is always good to know what they do not know.

First, the editorialist quoted Article VI, Clause 3, in an attempt to prove the supremacy of federal law over the states. The expert, Steve Sheppard, a professor at the U of A-Fayetteville, a teacher of constitutional law said, “States are a part of a federal system. When one wants to deal with issues of federal laws and the states, we have a method already, and that method is called the Congress. Passing legislation in the local legislature meant to interfere with federal law is not how this was meant to be done.” The good professor is only partly right and mostly wrong at the same time. The states created the federal system; the federal system did not create the states and whether the professor likes it or not, the states are not subservient/servants of the federal system. However with ratification of the 17^th Amendment (direct election of senators), that has reversed to the point that the states have lost their power to control the federal government-Congress and the laws created.

Expert and non-expert, (the non-expert is the editorialist in this case), both made the same mistake when using Article VI. Neither of them referred to the whole of Article 6 and therefore left out seven of the most important words in the entirety of the Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.  … The words that nearly all the experts and non-experts leave out are which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. That means that for a federal law to be supreme it must conform to the limits of the Constitution. That requirement is overlooked by commentators, expert law professor and Congress. If they don’t leave those words out, their federal supremacy argument goes into the sewer where it belongs. It isn’t federal law that is supreme it is the Constitution because Congress is supposed to be bound by the limits.

Big government supremacy types do not like the limits imposed by Article I Section VIII so they ignore them by ignoring which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. Note the verb shall. It means without exception. In other words Congress violates the Constitution each time it ignores those words and most of what they do is not done in pursuance thereof.

The ever so learned expert, law professor Shepard, should consider the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth reserves rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution and the Tenth allows the people and the states to do that which the Constitution does not forbid to them. The Constitution does not forbid states from challenging the laws Congress makes, and though the professor said the states could appeal to Congress, he left out the fact that the states can bring suit in federal courts which is being done all the time when Congress tries to ram laws down our throats. (Nut job care is an example with its violation of religious freedom.)

Mr. Shepard said, “Passing legislation in the local legislature meant to interfere with federal law is not how this was meant to be done.” Wrong Mr. Expert. What is meant to be done is that Congress is limited in its ability to interfere with the laws of the states. Federal supremacy is ruled out by the Constitution no matter what the experts, the non-experts and the Supreme Court may say.

Of course, experts have been trained by more experts who have twisted the clear meaning of the Constitution to make federal law supreme. It is thought that any law Congress passes is to be followed without any dissent. Mr. Professor and Mr. Editorialist that is not what the Constitution tells us. Federal law is only supreme when the laws shall be made in Pursuance thereof. Otherwise they have no constitutional standing. A perusal of the Federalist Papers and other works of the founders will show the truthfulness of that fact.

© 03-15-2013 DEC