The Annoyed Man wrote:http://patriotpost.us/articles/21444
Judicial Benchmarks: Federalism at the High Court
Although the SCOTUS case covered in this article is not directly related to the 2nd Amendment, the author points out that it has 2nd Amendment implications. This article is gun related because the author mentions the role of treaties in regard to federal law, specifically the UN gun-control treaty, the doctrine of federal supremacy on the one hand, and the limitations set upon the federal government by the 10th Amendment on the other hand.So the fallout from Bond v. U.S. may well have extensive impact on gun owners, and we should be watching this case. If the "U.S." prevails, you can bet your sweet bippie that its "penumbras and emanations" will rapidly be applied to gun-control issues by this administration—the most hostile to the 2nd Amendment in the nation's history.A big constitutional law battle is about to reach its climax – a battle between the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) states, “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.” The Tenth Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Tenth Amendment was intended to assure ratifying States that the powers of the federal government were limited and would not displace powers and areas of law traditionally belonging to the States. However, with an ever-expanding federal government, there have been increasing clashes of federal and state law. For example, real property and land use laws traditionally are within the bailiwick of the States. However, state control of this area is increasing displaced by federal environmental laws and regulations through the process of preemption.
"....in persuance thereof..." In other words, any law or treaty which complies with the contractual requirements made by the constitution and the bill of rights are valid and have legitimate authority, those that don't, don't. Any questions then the 10th covers any questions, ".......are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" If it attempts to infringe on the right to bear arms by any means, then it has no legal validity in this country per Article Vl. It seems to me Marbury vrs Madison already addressed this, if it isn't constitional it has no legitimate authority.