justalayman
Senior Member
if you would get your head out of your ass, you would notice that again, you site a publication that does not have the force of law. The actual constitution does have the force of law so it overrides the Federalist papers, which are used to interpret the constitution. There is no legal requirement they be followed and even they are open to interpretation themselves.Tritium;1933110]If you had been listening, in the Federalist papers, it states a Process by which a judge would determine the validity of a law that opposes another. As they do today in the courts. That would be by using the "Rules of Construction". It's a standard practice, as I said before "LOOK IT UP!"
here is a excerpt from www.house.gov:Also, while we're already here, go to the congress.gov - look at what they call a proposed amendment. It's a BILL.
All legislation is presented on a BILL. A WRITTEN DOCUMENT.
Since you want to make a claim, you need to support it. I am not going to wander all over a website looking for something you claim is there.Joint Resolutions
Joint resolutions may originate either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. There is little practical difference between a bill and a joint resolution. Both are subject to the same procedure, except for a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. On approval of such a resolution by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, it is sent directly to the Administrator of General Services for submission to the individual states for ratification. It is not presented to the President for approval. A joint resolution originating in the House of Representatives is designated "H.J.Res." followed by its individual number. Joint resolutions become law in the same manner as bills.
You are showing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension again. In response to you statement that I was not an attorney, I simply said that you were ignorant because underneath every post I make, I specifically state I am not an attorney. I told you it has been such for at least a year. You somehow convolute that into I suggested you need to understand what my signature line was previously. Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of the English language.And how should I know what your tag line was previously? Perhaps if you had an intelligent thought worth reading, I would have noticed. But I did not.
I believe you are lieing and cannot support your statement. That is why you continually direct me to LOOK IT UP. Why don;t you look it up and prove yourself right for a change.That would be by using the "Rules of Construction". It's a standard practice, as I said before "LOOK IT UP!"