Dwayne Stovall zmienił swój status.
Awake in the middle of the night? Might as well do some research on the supremacy clause...
Big government lovers love Hamilton, but they argue against him.
Big government lovers, people who think the supremacy clause in Article VI of the federal Constitution somehow establishes the federal government as an all-powerful overlord of the States regardless of the issue, tend to share something else in common; they generally love Alexander Hamilton.
What makes that fascinating to me is that Hamilton was crystal clear on the meaning of Article VI during the ratification debates in New York:
“I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”
Let's revisit that last part of Hamilton's explanation of the Article:
"...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”
That "sphere" involves only the few limited authorities delegated to the federal by the States that are listed in the Constitution and nothing more.
Hamilton even wrote in Federalist #33 - “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”
So, the next time someone invokes Alexander Hamilton to prop up some made-up notion that the States agreed to a National government with unlimited powers, you may want to inform them that doing that does little to support their argument.
