Monday Morning Poll: Divine Power Edition

What is more powerful?
[poll id=”118″]

Please explain your choice below.


  1. I’ve always understood that God’s power stemmed from a perfect knowledge of Eternal Law.

  2. Mike "okie" Troutt says:

    I think most would agree that God makes Himself subservient to Eternal Law, ergo Eternal Law is more powerful. –

  3. what part of “omnipotent” don’t you understand?

  4. Mike "okie" Troutt says:

    That would depend on who is actually defining “omnipotent”.

  5. Just because King Benjamin uses the word Omnipotent doesn’t mean God isn’t subject to Eternal Law. I still think God can do whatever he wants, mostly becasue he understands the law.

    My ability to create software to do what I want is limited by my imagination and my understanding of the programing language. An artist’s ability to create is limited by his skill and the knowledge of the medium he is using. God knows his medium perfectly.

  6. BruceC, who says that God is subject to the confines of software or any other medium?

  7. The number of times the B of M mentions the possibility that God could cease to be God make me believe that even He has to follow Eternal Law. His ability to follow it perfectly is what gives Him His power.

  8. I voted for God in something of a Pascalian wager of sorts.

    (But really, I think the question is off in that I believe they can be coequal etc.)

  9. I voted for God.

    While I believe that God’s power stems from his perfect understanding of eternal law- I don’t think that necessarily makes Eternal Law more powerful.

    When you understand something so deeply you are able to manipulate and bend it to your will. I see eternal law as a tool God uses to meet his own ends.
    Certainly eternal law is a powerful force, but it is inert and useless without the intellect and creative force of God behind it.

  10. What if God framed the Eternal Law?

  11. I think God can make an Eternal Law so Powerful that he cannot break it. Sort of like that rock he can’t lift.

  12. “What if God framed the Eternal Law?”

    What if God IS the Eternal Law?

  13. In HP yesterday the teacher mentioned God’s omnipotence casually, then mumbled something about God having created the “Law” while being subject to “some” of them. And he quickly moved on, before anybody could launch a Sunday Morning poll.

    Omnipotent. Works for me. I would say when the BoM says God could cease to be God, it’s from talking hypothetical cases that would never happen. They are thought experiments. I think making God subject to Law is an anthropomorphizing exercise designed to reassure ourselves that God is kind of like us, and we kind of like him. That if we were just a little smarter, we, too, could get around natural laws and fly like Superman.

    Like Hillary, we just don’t “want” it bad enough.

  14. Antonio Parr says:

    This may very well be a false question, since some of us would view eternal law and God to by perfectly synonymous.

  15. I voted for God. I have always figured that They have agency, just like we do, but choose to obey Eternal law because it is the right thing to do. To choose otherwise would be like choosing to stop loving Their children; possible, but not Godlike or perfect.

  16. First, how could a law be powerful?

    Next, we have to ask where God get’s his power from. I tend to think what we call eternal law is actually what is good (because let’s face it, if it is just technology we are talking about, Satan can be just as powerful as God – think nuclear power). And what is good exists only if there are agents to witness it. So, both good and eternal law are conditional.

  17. God is the great lawgiver. See D&C 88 and commentary by Hyrum G. Andrus in his book, God Man and the Universe.

  18. nasamomdele says:


    I don’t think God is subservient to anything. If he is perfect, he is the embodiment of the law. Thus the law begins and ends with God, his attributes, knowledge, and character.

    Everything seems to revolve around his perfection- that by which we are judged, the image in which we are created, the purpose for our life, etc.

    Either the Law was in existence and organized before God was, or God was in existence and gave the law.

    I find the latter to be more palpable.

  19. …I would however add that I believe Divine Command theory for ethics to be horribly wrong. I believe that God is 1) purely free and 2) always chooses good. Being purely free requires ability to do anything, which is perhaps a function of both capacity and knowledge (approaching infinity in both cases). What is good, however, requires relationships.

  20. I need to find a coin to flip. I’ll vote when I see the result.

  21. I think of these two being one, just as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one. So I voted for God because God covers just about everything.

  22. Perhaps this is just a popular “ism” from Gospel Doctrine back in the day, but I thought Eternal Law predated God and had worked cooperatively with other gods before Him. For this reason I voted Eternal Law.

  23. I guessed.

  24. Eternal law is more powerful than God? Wha? Huh? Who made the law? Who fulfilled the law? The law is a means to an end. It is not the end.

    Everytime I hear someone say that God is bound by and subservient to law, I think that this is just another person who is reading D&C 82:10 to the exclusion of the rest of the scriptures. Ugh. “D&C 82:10 Freaks,” I call them.

  25. Law is a tool; it can never be more or less powerful than a living being and especially a being such as God. It’s power is latent unless put to use by God. I would hope I would always vote for God! ;-)

  26. Oh, please,oh, please, oh, please let it not be true that BOTH Evans and Stapley are channeling BRM!

  27. Is there anything in Mormon scripture that precludes God from being the SOURCE of the eternal law?

  28. Law advocates:
    How does it play out on the ground? Why, for example, does Nephi get to kill Laban if law is paramount?

    God advocates (there must be a better term for that):
    If God is more powerful, what compels him to choose things we consider good?

  29. LOL, Kristine. One of the hallmarks of a great mind (such as my own) is the ability to entertain conflicting notions at once. I have an entire section of my brain dedicated to such things, which explains the channeling. Other popular contradictory positions include:

    1. “Chocolate in Peanut Butter or Peanut Butter In Chocolate? A study in duality”

    2. “I love you but I hate you: Kirk’s guide to exploding android heads”

    3. “Presiding in the Home: a Beginner’s guide”

    4. “Everything you ever wanted to know about aporia, but were afraid to find out”

  30. Again, a poll with only two answers that deserves a third option. God’s power is derived from a perfect understanding of eternal law, and perfect obedience to that law. That would seem to make them somewhat more equal. I know Stapley has reservations about some of the interpretations of the KFD and Sermon in the Grove, but I tend towards these earlier doctrinal expositions. Or so I’ve heard.

    Evans & Stapley channeling BRM, that’s good! I’m not sure he would approve!

  31. “God, finding that he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself.” -King Follett Discourse.

    At first glance, this seems to imply that God existed prior to laws and was the one who established law. Yet, the laws referred to here seems to be the Plan of Salvation (Happiness), since it’s design is to bring about the advancement of others, i.e., eternal progression.

    Since Latter-Day Saints believe in a God who functions within time and space – yet is infinite and eternal – it seems one can go around and around (much like Joseph’s “ring” example) in trying to get a handle on the existence of a set of a priori laws.

    I say we call it a tie and go have family home evening.

  32. Pardon me, but my comment in # 30 was not meant to be pejorative in regards to Steve Evans, J. Stapley, or Elder McConkie, lest anyone misunderstand. I’m pretty sure that Elder McConkie would not approve of the poll question to begin with, though.

  33. Steve Evans says:

    Nice try Kevin. TOO LATE

  34. Addendum to my comment #31: I didn’t mean to imply the God’s person is “infinite” (Holy Athanasian!, Batman). I meant that He is eternal in Joseph’s definition – no beginning and no end. And, yes, that opens up another can of worms, but what do you expect when mortals speak of immortality.

  35. The problem here is that some may think that Eternal Law is more powerful because God can not break it, however, since Eternal Law is not an Agent unto itself and thus can not do anything, it thus can not be powerful at all.

  36. Matt W.,,
    If God was to break eternal law, who would enforce punishment? Who enforces eternal law?

  37. Matt W.,

    You just summarized me and the child-proof cap.

  38. Eric Russell says:

    John, I don’t follow what the Nephi situation has to do with the Law. Not killing is far from an eternal principle.

    If you wanted a counter-example, you’d have to find an example where God commanded someone to be hard-hearted. It can’t happen, because God is incapable of commanding it.

  39. Kevin Barney says:

    I voted for Eternal Law. I didn’t really understand that in terms of moral law, but rather physical law, a la Talmage. That is, even God himself is bound by the physical laws and properties of the universe, which are external to him and he did not create (i.e., they are eternal). Since God is absolutely bound by and subject to such law, I thought that Eternal Law was more powerful, as it is a power that God can in no measure contravene.

  40. Eric,
    If you can find a legal justification for Nephi’s actions aside from “God told me, too,” I would be happy to hear it. If God commands, thou shalt not murder, but has exceptions in mind, then I’d be interested in having those noted beforehand, not afterwards.

  41. John C (#36),

    If a rock were to break the laws of physics, who would enforce the punishment? I am with Matt W that law of an eternal sort had better not be the kind that need someone to enforce them. Either they describe the way things “are” in a fundamental way, or I don’t think they count as eternal laws.

  42. Eric Russell says:

    John, you’ve lost me. I think we’d all find it quite convenient if God would list out all the possible exceptions to all the commandments he’s ever given, but I don’t think this says anything about the nature of an eternal moral law.

  43. I vote God for the reasons Matt W., et al. gave(presuming I’ve understood them correctly).

    Obfuscating with an analogy: The Law is a railroad; God is the train. The tracks exert no power, make nothing happen. They’re just there. The train does make things happen. The fact that it loses power and, in a sense, ceases to be a “train” off the tracks, is irrelevant for two reasons. One, the comparison is between the tracks and the train on the tracks. The train makes things happen; if the train goes off the tracks it’s just metal on the ground—like the tracks. Two, in our cosmos there is no place or time that is “off the tracks,” so it’s nonsensical to speak of the “train off the tracks.”

    Those who say, “God _can_ cease to be God” so He is less powerful are exactly backwards. “Can” indicates power. The Law cannot choose, cannot change, cannot _do_ anything other than exist. And, failing to exist, all else also fails to exist, obviating the question.

  44. Hmm. BCC’s Euthyphro by way of Nietzsche. Is it law because God is powerful or is God powerful because of law? And what is law anyway?

  45. Thomas Parkin says:

    Good answer, Edje. Yours is the way I thought when I first saw the question. God acts, and therefore can be said to have power. I wonder though if the passivity of the track keeps us from calling its influence power. Also, it doesn’t touch whether or not God created the track. That isn’t necessarily essential to the question. And, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with all the implications of God being on a track … metaphors aren’t infinitely stretchable, and that might be making a point with your metaphor that you didn’t intend to address.

    I’d expand the question to account for degrees of law. I think one of the most important and potentially enlightening lines of inquiry we can take on is: what are the differences between Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial laws, how can we distinguish them, and what happens to a being who lives a law not commiserate with the world he exists in?

    Here is a question for those who think God created the law whole cloth: could he have designed the Plan of Salvation to function without the freedom as a necessary dimension? If yes, then you’ve got all the nonsense again. If no, then there are principles that either precede or transcend God, or both. I’m of the mind that running the other direction for the sake of crying omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is the central feature of apostasy regarding the nature of God. Joseph’s God is a limited God. That is the Mormon heresy. But the blasphemy is all the other way. Because … if God is unlimited then there can be no principle on which to distinguish God/not-God, the same situation we find in a reality with no God at all.



    God cannot maintain his power unless he does certain things. God must is subject to law, so I voted eternal law.

  47. Strictly speaking, laws (by definition) do not “do” anything, and so are powerless. That said, there are two kinds of things that “eternal law” can refer to, and LDS scripture refers to both of them, so the question is ambiguous.

    There are divinely authored and enforced laws that are considered “eternal”, because “Eternal” is a name of God. cf D&C 130:22, referring to a law irrevocably “decreed” in heaven. There is clearly no natural reason why such laws could not be amended, in principle.

    On the other hand, the most foundational doctrines of Mormonism (a suffering atonement for example) suggest that there are necessities derived from eternal laws that are truly inviolable. Any law (or relationship) that is inviolable (e.g. 1+1=2) is by definition a natural law.

    This is where D&C 88 gets into deep water. We believe that God has a glorified *material* body embedded in time and space. That, for example, his body is physically in one place at one time. Orson Pratt ridiculed theologians of his day for asserting the opposite.

    So what does it take to make God the author of all laws, including natural (timelessly inviolable) ones? Nothing short of ex nihilo creation. So either matter and intelligence are eternally self existent independent of God (as Joseph Smith taught and D&C 93 implies) or God created time, space, matter, and intelligence out of nothing as a strict reading of D&C 88 implies.

    If God did no such thing, than he can hardly be considered to be the author of natural law. As Joseph Smith said in the King Follett Discourse, God himself could not create himself. That is a classic assertion of a natural law.

  48. Kevin (39) Since Eternal Law is also bound by Eternal law, using your reasoning, isn’t God equally powerful with Eternal Law, except that God has agency and can make choices, whereas Law can not?

    John C.- this is fun. Thanks!

  49. Oh, and John C.

    If God was to break eternal law, who would enforce punishment? Who enforces eternal law?

    I exactly agree with Jacob here, eternal laws are self-existant natural forces, like gravity. They need no enforcing as their existence is self-regulating.

  50. Matt,

    It’s been a while since we had a good theological scrum. :)

    If we are defining the limits of eternal law as that which God can’t do, are we admitting that we don’t have a clue what it is and that we aren’t interested in finding out? God has done a lot of things, some of them apparently contradictory. How would we use his actions to discern eternal law? Further, why should we use his actions to posit its existence?

  51. No One In Particular says:

    Kevin, 39:
    That’s funny, I had almost exactly the same reaction with the opposite conclusion (also, not Matt W.’s conclusion in 49). My thought is this: Gravity at one point seemed like a law more ‘powerful’ than mankind (and was undefined/poorly understood), and we didn’t fly; we progressed scientifically, and we have jets (and helicopters, hang-gliders, and all manner of flying machines). The atom was discovered (and given the name ‘a-tom’ because it couldn’t be divided); then, we divided it (with both great and terrible consequences).

    Whether or not God is the originator or Eternal Law, if He is really progressing eternally, He will at some point be able to (or perhaps already can) manipulate any given law, according to His (increasingly) perfect knowledge of it. Ergo, God wins, at least as time approaches infinity… unless anyone wants to argue that Eternal Law is progressing?

    Of course, if you don’t understand Eternal Law on those terms or God’s eternal progression as actual change of some sort, then all bets are off.

  52. People interpret the fact that God can cease to be God to posit a metaphysical reality that is “superior” in a sense to him. Somewhere in this post I wrote is another way to interpret that:

  53. Random Comment says:

    Well, the answer depends on which God we are referring to. If it’s God the Father, then certainly Eternal Law wins. However, if it’s God the Mother, then she will have found some way to overcome the oppressions of the Eternal Law.

  54. Given that Eternal Law is not an agent, it cannot be said that it has any power.

  55. Steve Evans says:

    Since when are inanimate objects incapable of being powerful?

  56. If Eternal Laws are like natural laws, like gravity (um, this is not actually an eternal law since its existence is entirely relative to where one stands), then we are comparing two things that cannot be compared. It is like asking what is more powerful, the second law of thermodynamics, or a rodent. There is no answer to this because there is no possible basis for comparing these two things.

  57. Power derives from making correct choices. Eternal Law isn’t in a position to make any choice; it just is.

  58. Steve Evans says:

    Eggzactly TT. Hence the real lesson for John C. is: this is a really dumb stupid poll.

  59. Bro. Jones says:

    God has the power to defeat paradox, therefore He can best any Eternal law.

  60. Then I vote we change the question: Is God good because he’s God, or is God God because he’s good?

    I’ll give you some time to unpack the syntax. :)

  61. Hence the real lesson for John C. is: this is a really dumb stupid poll.

    Steve, you ignorant slut.

    The question remains, is/are the being(s) we worship and on whom our salvation depends Him-/Her-/them self(ves) dependent upon externalities that govern His/Her/Their status as gods and, according to which, they are potentially subject to forfeiting said status?

  62. this is a really dumb stupid poll.

    I’m so glad someone finally said it.

  63. The question remains, is/are the being(s) we worship and on whom our salvation depends Him-/Her-/them self(ves) dependent upon externalities that govern His/Her/Their status as gods and, according to which, they are potentially subject to forfeiting said status?

    Yeah, you’re right, that question is so much more intelligible.

  64. Thanks for clearing that up for us Brad. Sheesh, grad students…. I bet Brad’s on welfare to boot.

  65. 52: The problem with that argument is that flying does not violate the law of gravity. Flying simply requires applying other counterbalancing forces.

    57: The idea that the law of gravity ceases to exist wherever the net gravitational field is zero (which is effectively nowhere btw) is untenable. “Gravity” and the “law of gravity” are two entirely different things. You might well say that the law of gravity is *why* the net gravitational field is zero in those rarest of places. One iota to the left or the right, and the field will be non-zero again.

  66. I bet Brad’s on welfare.

    Threadjack! I’ve just figured out that the UK government gives me around $1000/month* because I have kids. I’m on welfare and I work. Awesome. God save the Queen.

    *But takes about $800 back in taxes. Damn.

  67. StillConfused says:

    I think God is Eternal Law. But then again, I don’t believe that God is flesh and blood. That may make me a bad Mormon but it makes these questions easier to answer.

  68. Brad: There are two separate issues here:

    I. Is God’s divine status dependent on the consent of external agencies who establish, enforce, or uphold intrinsically social constraints on legitimate divine action? i.e. is God accountable to anyone besides himself?

    II. Are there natural laws comparable to the law of gravity that God did not establish and can neither decree nor revoke?

    If only the latter, I think we can safely say that the law of gravity is not going to impeach God’s authority anytime soon, even if it affects his yearly outlays.

  69. People,

    Nonsense comes standard with theology. To take a relevant example, people often argue that Christ’s atonement is necessary to relieve suffering for sin. “Justice demanded a sacrifice.” Well, who is this justice and why do they get to make demands of God and his plan?

  70. I voted for Eternal Law because I figured if God is bound to it and subjects himself to it, the law must be more powerful than Him. I don’t believe they are synonymous because I think that Eternal Law is somehow older and more omnipotent than Heavenly Father.

    Yes, of course I know that HF is eternal, but how do you solve that childlike question: who’s God’s father? And His father? And his? and then his? Who’s God’s g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandfather?

    I don’t know, but I think they all were subject to this “eternal law” you speak of.

    But forgive me. I know nothing of these things. I am simple. I’m just a cavewoman.

  71. meems FTW. Great line, Cirroc.

  72. John C. (#70),

    It may be that the atonement is fundamentally nonsensical or it may be that it is not. Either way, pointing out the fact that some people have advanced a nonsensical view does not make any headway toward proving that nonsense is required by theology. And, if it is not required, then people who introduce it for no reason (ala this poll) have no one to blame but themselves.

  73. John C,

    The obvious response is that “justice” is a figure of speech referring to constraints on God’s character rather than some sort of singular agency. After all if God’s mercy or kindness can constrain his actions certainly his sense of justice can.

    Beyond that, there are other reasonable possibilities both social and metaphysical that do not require some sort of demi-God with “JUSTICE” written on his forehead. I would say for example, that ameliorating the material harm done by sin requires the expenditure of real resources and that being the mediator of the restorative activity required causes God to suffer.

    That implies the existence of one or more underlying natural laws, but certainly not anything that can make and withdraw demands. Has the conservation of energy ever held someone for ransom? I don’t think so.

  74. Eric Russell says:

    MCQ, on the scale of literalness, I place that bit as even less literal than God giving Satan permission to tempt Job.

  75. Eric Russell says:

    No worries, StillConfused, Mormons don’t believe that God is flesh and blood either.

  76. “A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have” – Luke 24:39, emphasis added.

  77. John C.

    If we are defining the limits of eternal law as that which God can’t do, are we admitting that we don’t have a clue what it is and that we aren’t interested in finding out? God has done a lot of things, some of them apparently contradictory. How would we use his actions to discern eternal law? Further, why should we use his actions to posit its existence?

    I think we define eternal law as the natural self-existing order of the universe. Widtsoe terms it as the “law of cause and effect” where if all conditions are equal, and you do something, each time you do it, the effects will be exactly the same, all other things being equal.

    God resides within the universe in Mormon theology, so he is bound by this law of cause and effect. Of course at issue here is the fact that once something is done, the universe is fundamentaly changed(ie- a universe where the action was not yet done no longer exists), so is it even possible to do the same thing in exactly the same way twice?

  78. I’d like to join in here but I would first need to know the definitions of “God” and “Eternal Law” you are using John.

  79. And I’d like to know what the definition of “is” is here, JC.

  80. cahkaylahlee says:

    I voted for God due to the usage of the word “eternal” in D&C 19:10-12. If Eternal punishment is God’s punishment, Eternal law ought to be God’s law.

    I always feel tricked every time I read those verses…

  81. Matt,

    But God contravenes divine law, as far as we can tell, all the time. He tells Nephi to murder Laban and the Israelites to slaughter Ammonites even though there are laws irrevocably decreed in Heaven. If you posit some higher law to explain the seeming contradiction, it seems like you are saying that anything could be potentially justifiable. Which makes you a Divine Command Theorist, doesn’t it?

    I’m gonna go with God being the Godhead as we know it. Eternal Law is harder, but as an initial definition, we can go with things irrevocably decreed in heaven. But I’m open to suggestions on that.

  82. John C., but eternal laws in the sense I am suggesting are never initially decreed. Perhaps by eternal you are going with the D&C 19 version of the word, and the law you are speaking of is moral law, in which case God is more powerful than the law because the law is “God’s law”. But the law is situational at best, and in that case, sure Divine Command Theory is applicable. After all, JS taught:

    God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said, “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which thegovernment of heaven is conducted — by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire… [TOPJS, 255]

  83. So the defining characteristic of eternal law is that it is inherent and unchanging. Therefore, if God seems to change a law, it isn’t an eternal law. Is solipsistic, no?

  84. No One In Particular says:

    66: I wasn’t at all indicating that gravity (or any other law, physical, eternal or otherwise) was violated. I guess I cast my vote with the folks who say ‘no comparison,’ but if I have to pick one, I pick God for the same reason that I would pick humankind over gravity given that comparison. I guess the question I’m answering is more nuanced, something like ‘Is God bound by Eternal Law?’ (My answer: ‘only as much as I’m bound by gravity;’ the point being that those limitations are perhaps not as insuperable as they might have seemed in, say, the 16th century.)

  85. John,

    A law that is decreed is not eternal by definition, right? So eternal law might simply mean something like “the unchangeable nature of the universe and reality”.

    So if the Godhead is beginningless and matter is beginningless (along with its unchangeable nature) is it even coherent to ask which is more “powerful”?

  86. Which is more powerful, the law of gravity or mass?

  87. Like I said, the question is ambiguous because “eternal” means two different things in Mormonism, (1) timeless and (2) divine.

  88. Geoff,
    That is an interesting point. We do believe in a finite God. But is he finite in relation to this universe (to speak specifically of God the Father)?

  89. The question is akin to this: Is it possible for God to create something so powerful that even he can’t control it. To say no, you say he’s not omnipotent – and to say yes, you have the same.

    If Joseph was right and God wasn’t always like he is now, I would probably say that yes, he is perfect because he has mastered eternal law perfectly.

  90. Velska,
    I’m not trying to shake anyone’s belief. I believe that there are a variety of approaches in LDS belief to this question and, so, I am interested in what people have to say about it. I myself would probably say God most days (it’s what I voted), but on other days I would say Law, for many of the reasons cited by Matt, Geoff, and others. I put the poll up primarily because I find that approach to law unsatisfying and I am looking for a better one.

  91. John C.: But is he finite in relation to this universe (to speak specifically of God the Father)?

    This implies there are other universes. Unfortunately that clouds the discussion further. Since Mormonism teaches that God can’t create space or matter ex nihilo let’s just talk about all that exists and call it The Universe. That way it won’t matter if the whole is subdivided.

    The answer in Mormonism is yes, God is finite in some ways. With a resurrected body all members of the unified One God combined (no matter how many that number is) would still be physically finite at least.

  92. Geoff,

    I think that multiple universes do matter because of the sphere language, which implies, to me, discrete existences. I like your second point tho, which I should have thought of, but didn’t.

  93. Something or somebody created the law that God lives by. He serves the law perfectly. I can see both points to this so I think the problem exists around word “powerful”. great topic. This is fun. –

  94. can someone maybe list what these “eternal laws” are?

  95. Keith Hudson says:

    I did not vote, as the question is flawed. A law has no power, it just is. God has all power that can be had. Attempting to compare the two in the manner suggested by the poll is a fool’s errand. My two cents worth.

  96. I voted for God. The Law requires death, but God had the wit to win over death through His infinite mercy.

    The poll is flawed on several levels, though, I agree. “A law has no power it just is.” –Keith Hudson, (Thanks)

    There should have been the vote that neither supersedes the other, as someone else pointed out earlier.