Isn't there something in the constitution about the government not able to impose certain laws over riding state laws

not that I recall offhand, but there are other , better constitution experts in here

mainly I recall that if it is a power not specifically designated to the states it falls to the feds...such as immigration or interstate commerce. anything in the "public interest" that potentially "crosses interstate lines" falls to the feds

anything that involves an amendment of the constitution such as voters rights, civil rights, freedom of speech, gun control will always be federal (even if the states pass laws the feds will supercede..why Arizona could not act on their own w/ immigration)

local laws have jurisdiction unless there is a reason for federal jurisdiction such as a civil rights violation or environmental violation of the CFR( federal EPA can step in instead of state EPA) or a crime that crosses state lines (where most criminal err...by crossing state lines they invite the feds)

Read the 10th amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It never hurts to have a pocket copy of the Constitution on you for reference.

Of course you might be considered subversive if caught with it under this admin and its police state.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Pocket-United-States-Constitution-U-S-Bicentennial-Commission-Edition-/281148813272?pt=US_Texbook_Education&hash=item4175c66fd8 THE BEST $1.25 YOU'LL EVER SPEND!

The Commerce Clause is the part the federal govt tries to interpret their power under, by manipulating it to fit their needs. It is the most abused portion of the Constitution in the three branches of govt, and what gave us the Patriot Act, Obozocare, the FED, IRS, unconstitutional gun laws, and every other abuse to our rights we suffer from, and are made to believe, subject under.

I have mentioned this many times along with the differences between Common and Admiralty law, and the sham imposed on the American people to make them believe they are subject under the Admiralty statutes by use of the manipulated commerce clause.

From Wiki:

When he introduced the Tenth Amendment in Congress, James Madison explained that many states were eager to ratify this amendment, despite critics who deemed the amendment superfluous or unnecessary:

" I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.[6]"

The states decided to ratify the Tenth Amendment, and thus declined to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated rights.[7][8] The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication.
End Quote:

In other words, the Constitution limits the power (to make laws) to only that described in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People.

I believe that same Commerce-Clause gave the Federal Government the Inroad to expand and abuse its Power!

In a certain sense, the Tenth Amendment—the last of the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights is but a truism that adds nothing to the original Constitution. Since the federal government only possesses those powers which are delegated to it (Article I, Section 1), this amendment merely restates that all powers not delegated are in fact reserved to the States or to the sovereign people. In this sense, the Tenth Amendment concisely articulates the very idea and structure of a government of limited powers. The Tenth Amendment reinforces the federal system created by the Constitution and acts as a bulwark against federal intrusion on state authority and individual liberty. While the Supreme Court has countenanced a far-reaching expansion of federal power since the New Deal, Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, is not bound by these precedents and should uphold the concept of federalism embodied in this amendment. This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers.
"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."
Amendment 10

"The Constitution in One Sentence: Understanding the Tenth Amendment"

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/the-constitution-in-one-sentence-understanding-the-tenth-amendment

Manipulating the commerce clause is the only thing that gives the govt any of it powers over the individual states or the people.

It is the clause they use to define all their powers as "Constitutional" when in fact without the manipulation and false interpretations by their legal counsels and lobbyist sponsored judicial branch, no power exists for them.

The "rights" they proclaim are under Admiralty law.... the law of the seas.... and have no foundation for legality on common law..... the law of the land.

Thanks everyone.

Ok here is the debate I need help with before I pick a side lol.

Some college kid that works with my boyfriend in Texas (or any state) you don't have to have a drivers license because it's in the constitution something about travel. I thought the states have the.right to make laws enforcing DLs. Would whatever amendment about travel over ride a state law?

It's not what you "believe", it's what is law. But then again, it's not what is law, but what is enforced as law.

There is no just law to force you to "register" for a right to travel by whatever means of conveyance. But what is used and believed as law, and enforced by the courts thru common belief it is law......

There have been many challenges to this law, or the belief of it, and when challenged it has been won more often than lost.

It all boils down to the court and the judge, but legally (under common law), as an individual self (person), and not your corporate subject, there is no law requiring you register for anything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqFgUZcVDfo

The college kid is probably talking about the age old argument referenced in many Supreme Court cases because it came up in the classroom...The argument is that travel (which includes driving) is a right that cannot be prohibited or held to state approval...

Example: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transport is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right"...Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago

"The right to travel is a part of liberty of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment"...Kent v. Dulles

The are tons of these examples Kim and there is a lot more meat to these rulings than I have posted here...My belief is that states have the bottom line with respect to how this "fundamental right" is regulated, most specifically with respect to other drivers, pedestrian, and safety measures...Followed closely by each states fiscal responsibility to its residents....

The clause giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the major errors in the Constitution. That clause, more than any other, was the crack in the Constitution's foundation, the entering wedge of statism, which permitted the gradual establishment of the welfare state. But I would venture to say that the framers of the Constitution could not have conceived of what that clause has now become. If, in writing it, one of their goals was to facilitate the flow of trade and prevent the establishment of trade barriers among the states, that clause has reached the opposite destination.


Censorship: Local and Express,
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 184 Ayn Rand
------------
Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals,that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government,that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens protection against the government.

The Virtue of Selfishness

The Nature of Government
The Virtue of Selfishness, 114 Ayn Rand

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/constitution.html

Oh, that old argument. No, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that one has a right to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. That college kid has been fed a gross misinterpretation of what the Courts have said.

concern state vs fed laws

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

as far as travel, I wouldn't suggest anyone DRIVE without a license
traveling is not synonymous with traveling,,, we can still TRAVEL without being behind the wheel,,,as a passenger,,on bike, via foot,,etc,,,,

I could be wrong, but I think the Civil War put an end to states having the final say in anything.

and that was the biggest reason why that War was fought!

Thanks for the feedback (without fighting lol)

Keep giving more info. I figured the kid was full of it. He is trying to convince people not to renew their DL. Told them I reserve the right to say I told you.so when you are paying fines

There is a difference between having a right to travel on a public road and having the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on a public road. That kid has the two mixed up.

I would agree..

In simple terms, plrasr explain the 14th amendment

Purty please

Notice how the wind blows in the replies between the liberals and the conservatives or Constitutionalists.

The libs are quick to say and relinquish that the state or Fed has the power (they do not, they simply control the courts and take it!), while the conservatives define freedoms as an inherent right, not a privilege to be granted or taken away.

We are under liberal rule at present with a POTUS playing King.... nuff said.... you can figure out the rest.