The Whimsical Application of the Supremacy Clause

James Longstreet
There is a strange wisdom in a substantial and sustained movement required to exert legal efforts to transform one's wants into law.  The movement's validity must sustain itself and convince others of its merits before formal codification.

The current administration breaks this arrangement.  Obama has intentionally pushed the process into another form, circumvented the dictates of the channels required by this form of government.  In full display now is his twisting and selective implementation of a bad health insurance law strangely referred to as the Affordable Care Act.

There is a pillar of our federal system that requires state law to conform and not conflict with federal law.  It is known as the supremacy clause.  Federal law trumps state law. 

Regardless of one's thoughts regarding marijuana, its use, its effects, and the propensities it spawns, there is a federal law against its use and distribution.  Several states have decided they would confront the federal law.  Whimsically and without authority, the president and the attorney general have turned a blind eye.  The supremacy of federal law does not apply here, they say. 

This attitude is not distant from the "I have a pen and a phone" attitude recently aired by the president.  It is an affront to our system and form of government.  It is a breach of the oath of office, if nothing else.

But strangely and concurrently, some states have maintained a stance on gay marriage that we are told conflicts with federal law.  We are told state law cannot trump federal law because of the "supremacy clause."  Well, Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder, is there a clause or not?  For it is bizarre and fantasy that your administration and Department of Justice would hold such glaringly incongruous and seemingly contradictory positions at the same point in time.

Dispensing with the rules of the game, the breaking of oaths, the whimsical application of law seems to be the cornerstone of these past five years.  And sad years they have been.

There is a strange wisdom in a substantial and sustained movement required to exert legal efforts to transform one's wants into law.  The movement's validity must sustain itself and convince others of its merits before formal codification.

The current administration breaks this arrangement.  Obama has intentionally pushed the process into another form, circumvented the dictates of the channels required by this form of government.  In full display now is his twisting and selective implementation of a bad health insurance law strangely referred to as the Affordable Care Act.

There is a pillar of our federal system that requires state law to conform and not conflict with federal law.  It is known as the supremacy clause.  Federal law trumps state law. 

Regardless of one's thoughts regarding marijuana, its use, its effects, and the propensities it spawns, there is a federal law against its use and distribution.  Several states have decided they would confront the federal law.  Whimsically and without authority, the president and the attorney general have turned a blind eye.  The supremacy of federal law does not apply here, they say. 

This attitude is not distant from the "I have a pen and a phone" attitude recently aired by the president.  It is an affront to our system and form of government.  It is a breach of the oath of office, if nothing else.

But strangely and concurrently, some states have maintained a stance on gay marriage that we are told conflicts with federal law.  We are told state law cannot trump federal law because of the "supremacy clause."  Well, Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder, is there a clause or not?  For it is bizarre and fantasy that your administration and Department of Justice would hold such glaringly incongruous and seemingly contradictory positions at the same point in time.

Dispensing with the rules of the game, the breaking of oaths, the whimsical application of law seems to be the cornerstone of these past five years.  And sad years they have been.