Harbingers of decline
Polity: A particular form of political system or government
According to an article by David Lieb, Associated Press, about four-fifths of the states have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws related to marijuana use, gun control, health care and driver’s license identification. They do so in spite of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically provides that federal laws are superior to contrary state laws. And so, we witness the continued fraying of the very fabric of our nation.
I long for the days when the United States had a Constitutional form of government.
â€œThe Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance ofâ€”that is, consistent withâ€”the Constitution.â€
Powers that the Constitution explicitly grants the federal government:
Regulate interstate commerce
Coin money, regulate currency, set standards of weights and measures
Raise and maintain an army and navy
â€œThe Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.â€
â€œThe Necessary and Proper Clause is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The clause provoked controversy during discussions of the proposed constitution, and its inclusion became a focal point of criticism for those opposed to the Constitution’s ratification. While Anti-Federalists expressed concern that the clause would grant the federal government boundless power, Federalists argued that the clause would only permit execution of power already granted by the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton spoke vigorously for this second interpretation in the Federalist Papers as part of his argument for why the federal government required the powers of taxation. At this time James Madison concurred with Hamilton, arguing in Federalist No. 44 that without this clause, the constitution would be a “dead letter”. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry took the opposing view, saying that the clause would lead to limitless federal power that would inevitably menace individual liberty.â€ (Wikipedia)
Patrick Henry was correct.