All Pure Chemical Co, et al v Louise White :: 127 Wn2d 1
Category: Ninth and Tenth Amendments
The merits of this case are not under review. Furthermore, the writer does understand the relationship of the manufacturer to federal statutes. However, Justice Utter, when confronted with a case that in any way relates to central control will either avoid the issue, scapegoating the federal statute, or will add one more case to the common law of federal supremacy in direct violation of the tenth amendment. In this case he does both:
“The doctrine of federal preemption is rooted in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. Although there is a presumption that the “historic police powers of the States” will not be preempted by federal law, that presumption can be overcome if the Congress intends that federal law preempt state law. [Cites omitted].[at 5].
Justice Utter has forgotten, or ignored that the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution states that “This Constitution, and the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.” [art. 6, sec. 2]. Laws made in pursuance does not mean all laws made after the fact: It means all laws made in harmony with, accord, following after, etc. The Constitution severely limits the authority of the Congress [art. 1, sec. 8-9], but he has expanded the scope of their authority by claiming that they can write laws that violate the Tenth Amendment.
All justices concurred. God save our nation.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Aaron, Seth | |
| fail | Aaron, Seth | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Christ, Thomas | |
| fail | Dolliver, James | |
| fail | Durham, Barbara | |
| fail | Gilroy, Patrick | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Johnson, Charles | |
| fail | Keenon, Wade | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil | |
| fail | Utter, Robert |