HomeJoinMissionAbout UsLinksActivism

The Federal Government Retains Supreme Power...

by Don Schwarz

And so in 1933, the US Supreme Court noted to all Americans, that when Congress acts to protect our rights, and does so in a nationwide law, that the Federal government retains supreme power on the topic covered by its Acts.

[example:] If you meet the requirements of the Federal Bankruptcy law, no mere state can further regulate on that topic.

If Congress sets the minimum standards to obtain a Federal Aviation license or a Maritime license, the State cannot enact further legislation that defeats the purpose of the Act of Congress.

This authority is clearly expressed in the Act of Congress, Public Law 90-618 under Title 18 USC Sec. 927, when Congress specifically forbids the States from enacting any law regarding firerarms, that would defeat the intent of Congress that all lawful Americans would be able to possess firearms, as set forth in the standards exhibited upon the ATF FORM 4473.

Title 18 USC Sec. 927 "Effect on State law"

"No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of a State on the same subject matter, UNLESS there is direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together."

Just like the federal bankruptcy law, or the federal aviation law or maritime law, no mere state can enact legislation that defeats the intent of Congress. ".......she must submit to appropriate requirements by the controlling power......."

How could federal bankruptcy laws ever work, if state could enact their own concurrent laws on bankruptcy, such that, the federal laws became worthless?

How could federal firearm laws work, if mere states could enact laws that defeat the intent of Congress?

By Parity of Reason, if states wants to "participate" on the subject of firearms, then they must submit to the appropriate requirements [ ATF FORM 4473 ] as established by the controlling power under 18 USC s. 927.

Can there be any doubt about what the court has said?

No person can obey two masters.

If Congress says who can possess a firearm, no state can enact laws that violate those standards.

Think about it, if any mere state could enact a law that infringed rights protected by an Act of Congress, what good would that right be if you went to another state, that the state refused to honor?

You have the right to own a gun in the state you're in, but if you move to another state, your federal rights no longer apply! You have to surrender the right and your firearms before you're given "Partial faith and credit" in the state that bans certain Acts of Congress therein.

"Limited equality under law" says the state that denies you.

Sounds pretty stupid.


at page 331 of the ruling......

"The Federal Constitution clothes the Congress with power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

at page 332 of the ruling....................

In re Wood & Henderson, 210 U.S. 246, 254 , 28 S.Ct. 621, 625: 'Congress has the right to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States; and, having given jurisdiction to a particular district court to administer and distribute the property, it may, in some proper way, in such a case as this, call upon all interested to appear and assert their rights.'

at page 333 of the ruling --------------------

Van Huffel v. Harkelrode, 284 U.S. 225, 227 , 52 S.Ct. 115, 116: 'No good reason is suggested why liens for state taxes should be deemed to have been excluded from the scope of this general power to sell free from incumbrances. Section 64 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 USCA 104) grants to the court express authority to determine 'the amount or legality' of any tax. ... Realization upon the lien created by the state law must yield to the requirements of bankruptcy administration.'

The Federal government possesses supreme power in respect of bankruptcies. International Shoe Company v. Pinkus, 278 U.S. 261, 265 , 49 S.Ct. 108. If a state desires to participate in the assets of a bankrupt, she must submit to appropriate requirements by the controlling power; otherwise, orderly and expeditious proceedings would be impossible and a fundamental purpose of the Bankruptcy Act would be frustrated.