Car Buyers Spurn GM, Ford as Japan Brands Retain Aura (Update3)

On Jul 3, 7:04*pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 5:48 am, Bill Putney > wrote:
> >> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >>> ...as all federal law supersedes state law
> >>> under the US Constitution...
> >> Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). *Where the
> >> Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if* you're
> >> going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these days).
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Putney
> >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> >> address with the letter 'x')
>
> > Bill, Bill, Article VI:
>
> > "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
> > made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land,
> > and 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. *Quite well known.
>
> "...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
> notwithstanding."
>

Yes, it means regardless of what the constitution of any state, or the
laws of any state, say to the contrary, federal laws take precedence.
Problems parsing?

> You apparently stopped reading before you got to that part.
>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

wrote:
> On Jul 3, 7:04 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Jul 2, 5:48 am, Bill Putney > wrote:
>>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>> ...as all federal law supersedes state law
>>>>> under the US Constitution...
>>>> Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). Where the
>>>> Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if* you're
>>>> going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these days).
>>>> --
>>>> Bill Putney
>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>> Bill, Bill, Article VI:
>>> "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
>>> made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land,
>>> and 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. Quite well known.
>> "...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
>> notwithstanding."
>>
>
> Yes, it means regardless of what the constitution of any state, or the
> laws of any state, say to the contrary, federal laws take precedence.
> Problems parsing?
>
>> You apparently stopped reading before you got to that part.

OK - like, Wow! It wasn't a parsing problem. I actually thought the
word "notwithstanding" meant the exact opposite of what it actually
means. I admit I was wrong on this just like I would have expected you
to if you had been wrong.

Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of
Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 7:04 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 2, 5:48 am, Bill Putney > wrote:
>>>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>>> ...as all federal law supersedes state law
>>>>>> under the US Constitution...
>>>>> Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). Where the
>>>>> Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if*
>>>>> you're
>>>>> going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these
>>>>> days).
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bill Putney
>>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>>> Bill, Bill, Article VI:
>>>> "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
>>>> made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land,
>>>> and 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. Quite well known.
>>> "...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
>>> notwithstanding."
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it means regardless of what the constitution of any state, or the
>> laws of any state, say to the contrary, federal laws take precedence.
>> Problems parsing?
>>
>>> You apparently stopped reading before you got to that part.
>
> OK - like, Wow! It wasn't a parsing problem. I actually thought the word
> "notwithstanding" meant the exact opposite of what it actually means. I
> admit I was wrong on this just like I would have expected you to if you
> had been wrong.
>

Frankly, it's nothing more than an academic exercise to discuss the US
Constitution because the fact is that modern US law is based on the
Constitution PLUS the 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions that
have modified..I-mean-clarified.. it's original meaning. ;-)

Such as for example the US Constitution permits states to succeed from
the Union, did you know that? Nothing in it, or it's amendments, outright
prohibits it. However we have the Civil War that tells us different ;-)

> Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of
> Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)
>

If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded
as a terrorist document.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded
> as a terrorist document.

Only by around 50% of the population.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Bill Putney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 7:04 pm, Bill Putney > wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 2, 5:48 am, Bill Putney > wrote:
>>>>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>>>>> ...as all federal law supersedes state law
>>>>>>> under the US Constitution...
>>>>>> Please cite where it says that (hint: it doesn't). Where the
>>>>>> Constitution is silent, the Federal gov't has no authority (*if*
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>> going to go by the Constitution, which I know is frowned upon these
>>>>>> days).
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Bill Putney
>>>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>>>> address with the letter 'x')
>>>>> Bill, Bill, Article VI:
>>>>> "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be
>>>>> made in pursuance therof, ... shall be the supreme law of the land,
>>>>> and 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. Quite well known.
>>>> "...any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
>>>> notwithstanding."
>>>>
>>> Yes, it means regardless of what the constitution of any state, or the
>>> laws of any state, say to the contrary, federal laws take precedence.
>>> Problems parsing?
>>>
>>>> You apparently stopped reading before you got to that part.
>> OK - like, Wow! It wasn't a parsing problem. I actually thought the word
>> "notwithstanding" meant the exact opposite of what it actually means. I
>> admit I was wrong on this just like I would have expected you to if you
>> had been wrong.
>>
>
> Frankly, it's nothing more than an academic exercise to discuss the US
> Constitution because the fact is that modern US law is based on the
> Constitution PLUS the 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions that
> have modified..I-mean-clarified.. it's original meaning. ;-)

There are those that believe it is still the law of the land contrary to
some who are sworn to uphold it abusing their power and violating it.
And I know that some in power now admit publicly that they don't
believe in the Constitution - yet they swore to uphold it. Maybe they
are nihilists. But if they were honest, they would not have taken their
oath.

> Such as for example the US Constitution permits states to succeed from
> the Union, did you know that? Nothing in it, or it's amendments, outright
> prohibits it. However we have the Civil War that tells us different ;-)

....secede...

I was born, and presently live, 45 miles from Appomattox Court House
(drove thru it about 2 hours ago as a matter of fact), and I do know a
little about the thing that some call "the recent unpleasantless". Just
because the Constitution has been grossly violated at times does not
negate it. The fact is that it is the law of the land, whether it is
followed or not (and I would agree that it is not followed in many
areas) does not make it not the law of the land in principle. To
believe otherwise would be anarchy.

The "precedence" thing is a crock. I wonder if I can get out of a
speeding ticket by invoking precedence. Something tells me I wouldn't
get away with it. Yet it is used to get away with how the entire
country is run.

I also am aware that the intent of certain organizations and certain
figures respected by the left have as their founding principles and
advocate using the Constitution to systematically destroy and dismantle
the Constitution itself. Yet they offer nothing that is better, and
even if they did, their own contradictions would and could be used by
their opposition to declare whatever it is that they declared as being
the law of the land to also have no authority, and so they would likely
eventually resort to totalitarianism or themselves be overthrown (IOW -
continuing anarchy unless ruling with a dictatorial iron fist).

>> Coming next week: The phrase "alter and abolish" from the Declaration of
>> Independence, and does it trump "The Supremacy Clause". (j/k)
>>
>
> If the Declaration of Independence was written today it would be regarded
> as a terrorist document.

And therefore what...? You often sound like another disciple of Saul
Alinsky.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')