The Supremacy Clause: Taking back America without violence

By: KenLaRive, The Liberty Beacon

No, I do not have a law degree. But I want my country back. I want states rights to trump unconstitutional powers imposed by a top heavy and tyrannical Federal Government. I want the Patriot Act, and the NDAA abolished, the socialism of Obama-care demolished, and I want no more debt from the Federal Reserve.

As an Oath Keeper, I am looking for a peaceful means of accomplishing this, by rule of constitutional law. I want my civil liberties to be returned to me and my country to again be the light of Liberty. A government who imposes its will on an unwilling populous is an oppressor, and I will resist this with all of my might.











On April 26th, of 2013, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, wrote a letter to Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. It informed Governor Brownback that the Obama administration considers any attempt to protect the Second Amendment an unconstitutional act, and that federal officers and agents will “continue to execute their duties,” no matter what any State Constitution indicates. It was a reply to a recent law enacted by the governor that declared:


Our right to bear arms

“It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule of regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony.”


Governor Brownback’s letter is referencing a long standing debate called nullification. His take on the subject of nullification was rejected by Obama, as it has been historically rejected repeatedly by the courts. According to Wikipedia:

The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws, including the Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s ruling in 1854 that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which found that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.

In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.”

Governor Brownback, however, does not deny this debate, but makes reference to what he considers a misreading, or wrong interpretation of Article VI of the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause.
Attorneys, and students of law, have an obligation to step forth at this time, to define this reinterpreted meaning for the good of Liberty once and for all. I have highlighted several words and phrases below, key words that can be used as bricks to rebuild our Constitutional Republic, without violence. Our Revolution, as promoted by Ron Paul, is one of intellect.

Governor Brownback suggests that federal laws are not the supreme law of the land without qualification, (the key word), and using the article’s description as reference, “In pursuance thereof.” It does not state a violation, but that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” is in effect the law of the land. This indicates that when the Federal Government passes any mandate, bench-law, or any measure not provided for in the “limited rooster” of its “enumerated powers,” those acts do not take precedence over our State Constitutions. In other words, an unconstitutional mandate from the Oval Office, or any external force like the UN, should be regarded as “merely acts of usurpation’s” and in effect be disregarded, disobeyed, even ignored, as they do not qualify to be the supreme law of the land.

In an article by Joe Wolverton II. J.D., he mentions several reference to the Federalist Papers in his discussion of this issue. One such letter, and subsequent clarification, came from Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist, No. 78, : “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore contrary to the constitution shall be valid.”

James Madison continued along this thread in a speech he gave in 1789: : “The state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.”

It seems evident by these writings, just a small portion to the Federalist Papers, that these men had a crystal clear understanding of the chain of command, and they saw State’s Rights trumping Federal Rights when the Constitution was originally drafted. This is why the Federalist Papers are so important to know. If there is any doubt posed, the true and directed meaning of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments, can be understood.

And know this from history, once our rights are diminished, it is indeed a stepping stone for more, incrementally, and getting them back peacefully next to impossible. From an historical perspective, once lost, only the dismantling of that government will return it, by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Hopefully, there is enough of our Republic’s rule of law remaining to curb this coming clash, as there are some who will stop at nothing to abolish all unconstitutional mandates.

Jefferson said it well: “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” -Ron Paul

Related Articles

Suggested by the author:


4 Comments on The Supremacy Clause: Taking back America without violence

  1. “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.” “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void.” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176

    “Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter.” Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.

    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

    “If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.” Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

    “It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking.” Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.

    “The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose.” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.

    “The constitution is an instrument from the people and a construction thereof should effectuate their purpose from the words employed in the document; and the courts may not color it by the addition of words or the ingrafting of their views as to how it should be written.” Ervin v. Collins, Fla. 85 S. 852; 59 ALR 706.

    “The basic purpose of a written constitution has a twofold aspect, first the securing to the people of certain unchangeable rights and remedies, and second, the curtailment of unrestricted governmental activity within certain defined fields.” DuPont v. DuPont, Sup. 32 Ded. Ch. 413; 85 A 2d 724.

    “The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

    “Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority.” Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13.

    “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson.

    “Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.” Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).

    “Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government.” Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.

  2. Beware of those who claim that the Constitution is a living instrument because they are seeking justification for its violation. They claim that it evolves or changes as the peoples’ wants or needs change. They will call it outmoded, old-fashioned, antiquated, archaic, etc., trying to convince you that the Founders could not have foreseen the peoples’ needs so long ago. These people will support Constitutional changes resulting from Amendments, Supreme Court decisions, Presidential Proclamations or Voter Referendums.

    Amendments: While I admit that minor changes can lawfully be made to the Constitution by Amendment, I will not accept major changes that are in direct conflict with the Founders intent, e.g. the 16th and 17th Amendments. The 16th Amendment changed the method of taxation from indirect to direct. The 17th Amendment removed an important check against federal government growth. The Constitution is a written contract between We The People and government. To remain lawful a contract must maintain its original intent.

    “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

    “The primary principle; underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law.” Rasmussen v. Barker, 7 Wyo. 117; 50 p 819.

    Supreme Court Decisions: “In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Article III, Section 2, US Constitution. These words grant Congress some authority over the US Supreme Court that should be exercised. The Congress also has the power to create as many inferior courts to the supreme court as it deems necessary (see Art. III, Sec. 1). Restricting the kinds of cases heard by the Supreme Court and creating more inferior courts would reduce the power of the US Supreme Court and get cases settled much sooner.
    I would also introduce legislation requiring the Supreme Court to justify their decisions by citing case law, the Federalist Papers, The Constitution, etc., to prevent them from making new law as was done with Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmun who wrote that decision for the Court has recently left this earth to face his own Judgment for his role in the extermination of over 35 million unborn babies. The Congress should have prevented the Court from hearing this case allowing the individual states to settle the issue.

    Presidential Proclamations: The President has the authority to issue all the “Executive Orders” he see fit to the Executive Branch of government. However, he does not have the authority to issue orders or proclamations to the people because that changes our form of government from a Republic to a Dictatorship.

    “All legislative Powers, herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…” Art. I, Sec. 1, US Constitution.
    “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” James Madison, Federalist essay #47.

    Voter Referendums are not provided for in our Constitution because governments ruled by voter referendums (majority rule) are democracies not republics (rule by law). Click here for an explanation of the differences between republics and democracies.

    “This constitution, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2.

  3. Excellent article.

    Minor typo: “. . . an unconstitutional mandate from the Oval Office, or any external force like the UN, should be regarded as “merely acts of usurpation’s” . . . [ should be usurpations ] . . . and in effect be disregarded, disobeyed, even ignored, as they do not qualify to be the supreme law of the land.”

2 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Celine Handbags
  2. maillot ukraine officiel

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.