Page 254 - Beers With Our Founding Fathers

Beers with our Founding Fathers

important to understand this essential interpretation – otherwise

you have a ‘what came first, the chicken [state’s rights] or the egg
[individual rights]’ question – individual rights come first, which

cannot be infringed upon by the state or federal governments, and
states’ rights cannot be infringed upon by the federal government.

The history of the Constitution is that the federal government
has no jurisdiction or authority over the states, except as provided

under the commerce clause, and interstate activities and commerce.
By inference, it also provides that the states maintain exclusive

jurisdiction over all matters within their boundaries, and which are
not either reserved to or under the jurisdiction of the federal

government.
Finally, any powers not enumerated to either the federal or

state governments are reserved to the people. This would include
to the local governments within the states, and down to the nuclear

family. In the reverse, the nuclear family and state governments
may be under jurisdictions of the state or federal governments. In

the course of legislative events, state law cannot be less strict than
federal law, and local law cannot be less strict than state law. In the

several states, it is also codified that local law cannot be stricter than
state law. As an example, federal law prohibits the recording of a

telephone conversation between two people, unless at least one
person gives consent. State laws vary, from requiring only one

person to give consent or two (all) parties giving consent. This is the

concept that state law cannot be less strict than federal law. No
state can permit the recording of a phone conversation without the
consent of at least one person – that would supersede federal law

-- 254 --