By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Question from reader: I am trying to make sense of state vs. federal laws. I read in one of your articles, "Any federal law that is not within the authorities granted are unconstitutional laws, and therefore are laws that the States do not necessarily have to worry about.” My questions is what federal laws are within the authorities granted?
I am a nutrition consultant. Well, Maine wants food sovereignty and they have gotten pushback from the feds. See:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PYp5sROj_1NkxMa3BRMHNVOXdkTDVwajNZN245VDA0Vzdj/view?usp%3Dsharing
I am referring to the second paragraph where Mr. Almanza writes, “...would contravene Federal food safety laws and regulations.” Is this within the feds authority granted to them from the Constitution? I would very much appreciate your thoughts because I know people involved with this issue.
Thank you! I see that you have gained national acclaim with your work.
I responded: Federal authorities are expressly enumerated in the Constitution, so technically, if the authority is not listed in Article I, Section 8 or any subsequent amendment, then the federal government does not have the authority. As per the 10th Amendment, if the federal government is not granted the authority, and the State is not prohibited the authority by any constitutional text (original list in Article I, Section 10), then it is a State authority. If the federal government is not given an authority by the Constitution, but produces laws regarding that authority, the laws are illegal (unconstitutional) and therefore the States do not have to abide by an illegal law. That's called "nullification," a concept discussed by Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions. There are also writings by James Madison after the Nullification Crisis, where he explains States are only supposed to nullify unconstitutional laws, not laws they simply do not agree with politically.
Here's the thing. There are some issues that the federal government has taken over that many people believe they should have, anyway. Fine, but until the States 3/4 ratify an amendment granting that authority, it still does not belong to the federal government. Some of the more glaring cases where the federal government has grabbed the authority of, but there are no enumerated authorities regarding the issue in the Constitution, includes drugs, guns, pharmaceuticals, food, and aviation.
In short, Maine has every constitutional authority to do what it is doing.
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Question from reader: I am trying to make sense of state vs. federal laws. I read in one of your articles, "Any federal law that is not within the authorities granted are unconstitutional laws, and therefore are laws that the States do not necessarily have to worry about.” My questions is what federal laws are within the authorities granted?
I am a nutrition consultant. Well, Maine wants food sovereignty and they have gotten pushback from the feds. See:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PYp5sROj_1NkxMa3BRMHNVOXdkTDVwajNZN245VDA0Vzdj/view?usp%3Dsharing
I am referring to the second paragraph where Mr. Almanza writes, “...would contravene Federal food safety laws and regulations.” Is this within the feds authority granted to them from the Constitution? I would very much appreciate your thoughts because I know people involved with this issue.
Thank you! I see that you have gained national acclaim with your work.
I responded: Federal authorities are expressly enumerated in the Constitution, so technically, if the authority is not listed in Article I, Section 8 or any subsequent amendment, then the federal government does not have the authority. As per the 10th Amendment, if the federal government is not granted the authority, and the State is not prohibited the authority by any constitutional text (original list in Article I, Section 10), then it is a State authority. If the federal government is not given an authority by the Constitution, but produces laws regarding that authority, the laws are illegal (unconstitutional) and therefore the States do not have to abide by an illegal law. That's called "nullification," a concept discussed by Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions. There are also writings by James Madison after the Nullification Crisis, where he explains States are only supposed to nullify unconstitutional laws, not laws they simply do not agree with politically.
Here's the thing. There are some issues that the federal government has taken over that many people believe they should have, anyway. Fine, but until the States 3/4 ratify an amendment granting that authority, it still does not belong to the federal government. Some of the more glaring cases where the federal government has grabbed the authority of, but there are no enumerated authorities regarding the issue in the Constitution, includes drugs, guns, pharmaceuticals, food, and aviation.
In short, Maine has every constitutional authority to do what it is doing.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment