Skip to main content

Reply to "California's Prop 19--Pot, Grass, Weed, that's right,"

quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Ren,

I sort of agree with you, the Feds do not have a monopoly on interpretations of the Constitution.

However, given the Supremacy Clause, it would take a Constitutional Convention to rectify the issue of states' rights.

I'm all for one, especially if it includes a Balanced Budget clause with penalties for intractable congresspeople.

nsns


Much could be said of the so-called "supremacy clause"...But briefly, no constitutional convention needed. Notice "in pursuance there of"...if federal law is not "in pursuant" of the enumerated powers it is not constitutional...let alone "supreme".

In a historical context, the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government...not give them unlimited power.

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×