July 4, 2017
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor, FFOA News Network
The Supremacy Clause is one of the most misunderstood parts of the U.S. Constitution and is constantly misinterpreted by many people who should know better. The Supremacy Clause is contained in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution and reads “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” The Supremacy Clause in effect says that Federal law rules supreme over State law and in general from that standpoint it is consistent and makes perfect sense.
The problem occurs when the Federal Government passes a law that is unconstitutional (which they do with regularity) and then attempts to use the Supremacy Clause to enforce the law. This justification for this set of circumstances just will not pass the smell test but stinking up the place constitutionally is something the Federal Government has mastered.
A second problem occurs when a Treaty is passed that has provisions that violate our Constitution. A Treaty does not take precedence over our Constitution but some people would have you think that it does. So, for example, the U.S. cannot conclude a Treaty that takes away your rights under Amendment II. That portion of such a Treaty would be void.
Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” We have a long history of the liberal media adhering to and giving aid and comfort to our enemies. All the way back to the Vietnam War and probably further. The Sedition Act of 1918 forbade Americans to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. government, flag, or armed forces during war. This act was repealed on December 13, 1920 but sedition has always been a crime. The last known attempt to prosecute someone for sedition was in 1959 when John W. Powell published inaccurate information about the U.S. government while working in Korea.
The media has enjoyed complete freedom from prosecution for sedition in part because of two unbelievable court rulings that could only have been decided by judges who had been drinking too much Socialist Kool-Aid. In N.Y. Times (notice how this name keeps cropping up) v. Sullivan 1964 the judge essentially said that “to ensure that debate on public issues remains uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” it is just fine and dandy to lie. So you can just go ahead and lie as long as you say the lie is uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. In St. Avant v. Thompson 1968 the judge asserted that “to ensure the ascertainment and publication of the truth about public affairs, it is essential that the First Amendment protect some erroneous publications as well as true ones.” If I am reading this one correctly, I think that it says whenever you lie in print it’s acceptable as long as you say you were trying to ascertain the truth. The courts have given the media a free pass to lie and when they print sedition they only have to say “I know, but I was just trying to ascertain the truth and besides it was really a robust and uninhibited form of sedition.”
Sedition, like treason, has no statute of limitations.