Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Donald Trump: I’ll Sign National Reciprocity if It Reaches My Desk
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TDoug" data-source="post: 3443454" data-attributes="member: 37733"><p><strong>Article. VI.</strong></p><p>¶2 – <u>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States</u> which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, <u>shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby</u>, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.</p><p></p><p><strong>Marbury v. Madison 5US 137 (Vol 5, p137)</strong></p><p>Chief Justice John Marshall, in his opinion: “<u>Anything that is in conflict (with the Constitution) is null and void of law</u>.” “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law is illogical. For certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws.”</p><p></p><p>The law in conflict would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey. It would report to settle as if it had never existed. Unconstitutionality would date from the date of enactment of the law, not from the date so granted in a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TDoug, post: 3443454, member: 37733"] [B]Article. VI.[/B] ¶2 – [U]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States[/U] which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, [U]shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby[/U], any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [B]Marbury v. Madison 5US 137 (Vol 5, p137)[/B] Chief Justice John Marshall, in his opinion: “[U]Anything that is in conflict (with the Constitution) is null and void of law[/U].” “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law is illogical. For certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other laws.” The law in conflict would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey. It would report to settle as if it had never existed. Unconstitutionality would date from the date of enactment of the law, not from the date so granted in a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Donald Trump: I’ll Sign National Reciprocity if It Reaches My Desk
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom