Montana Nullifies Gun Laws

[Predicto]

We have definitely exited the world of constitutional law as it has developed over the past 220 years, and entered the world of "constitutional law as I wish it was if we started all over again from scratch."

State nullification of federal law has been a dead issue since the Nullification Crisis of 1832, and has received no legal support since the 1840s (a dissenting opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) 41 U.S. 539.)

Southern racists opposed to the Civil Rights Acts tried to revive this idea in the 1950s and 60s, but they called it "interposition" instead. It was invalid then too.

This isn't going to go anywhere.

[skinfan133]

The myth that state governments are better equipped to handle problems than the federal government persists. YAY.

well of course not when the federal government constantly ties the states' hands and tramples on their sovereignty. If our federal system was allowed to operate correctly I think you would see that popular sovereignty and local rule are better suited for a majority of issues of governance.

of course though, the federal government has roles of superiority. you can find those specifically and intentionally listed in the United States Constitution.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We have definitely exited the world of constitutional law as it has developed over the past 220 years, and entered the world of "constitutional law as I wish it was if we started all over again from scratch."

State nullification of federal law has been a dead issue since the Nullification Crisis of 1832, and has received no legal support since the 1840s (a dissenting opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) 41 U.S. 539.)

Southern racists opposed to the Civil Rights Acts tried to revive this idea in the 1950s and 60s, but they called it "interposition" instead. It was invalid then too.

This isn't going to go anywhere.

No way Predicto... the Constitution says "In order to form a more perfect union," therefore anything they do that makes the union less perfect is unconstitutional. And perfection is decided by the States. :paranoid:

[Hubbs]

My guess is that the courts will rule against Montana, since the medicinal marijuana case Larry mentioned was ruled on only a few years ago. It seems like the courts haven't really changed their minds very much. And if Obama sits a new justice, I'm willing to bet that they won't be very enthusiastic about affirming State's rights. Still, you don't get anywhere by not trying. I'm glad Montana is trying to regain some of its lost power.

Again, a big part of that ruling was the fact that the marijuana in question wasn't distinguishable from any other marijuana. Hence the "Made in Montana" part of the law.

The odds of the SC upholding this aren't great. But to simply say that it's no different than previous ICC cases isn't true. Montana's state legislators have tried to conform to previous rulings with this law.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

well of course not when the federal government constantly ties the states' hands and tramples on their sovereignty. If our federal system was allowed to operate correctly I think you would see that popular sovereignty and local rule are better suited for a majority of issues of governance.

of course though, the federal government has roles of superiority. you can find those specifically and intentionally listed in the United States Constitution.

Man, its so easy! I wonder why we have had any debates since 1789! We don't even need a Supreme Court because its so obvious what the Constitution means.

:thumbsup:

[Hubbs]

Man, its so easy! I wonder why we have had any debates since 1789! We don't even need a Supreme Court because its so obvious what the Constitution means.

:thumbsup:

*scratches head*

I'm not really sure what you're being sarcastic towards in that post. He didn't really make any grandiose claims, other than perhaps saying that the federal government has pummeled states' rights for decades now, which I can't believe you would disagree with. You might say that it's good that the Feds have assumed a lot more power - that can be debated forever. But the states were a helluvalot more autonomous a century ago than they are now.

[skinfan133]

Well, sometimes you give up.

You see, the enumerated powers are actually two: 1) regulating interstate commerce; and 2) anything necessary and proper to doing that.

It is certainly logical and conceivable that regulating intrastate commerce is necessary and proper to carrying out congress's enumerated power of regulating interstate commerce.

I gave the :doh: because it was pretty justified, and I'm just ****y these days about everyone thinking they are a constitutional law scholar by virtue of the fact that they are an american.

also, it wasn't an accurate point. It showed a lack of constitutional understanding, specifically with regards to what the necessary and proper clause is.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a blanket concept for congress or the federal government to do whatever it feels like. the constitution stipulates things for a reason. if the NPC was written in the sense that you say it was, then the proceeding clauses of Article I sec. 8 are completely meaningless. they should have just written: 'Congress can make any law for the good of the country whether they want it or not.'

the cool thing about America is that anyone is free to have an opinion about its government and the contract between that person and said government. anyone who says otherwise is an elitist pig :2cents:

[SnyderShrugged]

I want to go back to this because this is insanely stupid.

Let's go to 1985. If Rudy Guiliani wanted to prosecute the Mafia Commission under RICO...he needed permission from the Chief of Police of New York City?

Do you really believe that?

More importantly' date=' are you telling anyone impressionable that this is the current state of the law?

Because someone is going to go to jail if they listen to you.[/quote']

You misunderstand me. (my fault as I am trying to squeeze posts in at the office)

Let me try to clarify.

I am not saying that the Feds need "permission", I am only saying that if the Feds overreach their prescribed boundaries, then the county sherriff has the right to protect people in his jurisdiction from tyranny and that he has the express authority to do so.

sorry for the lack of explanation earlier. not much time free to do this.

[SnyderShrugged]

We have definitely exited the world of constitutional law as it has developed over the past 220 years, and entered the world of "constitutional law as I wish it was if we started all over again from scratch."

State nullification of federal law has been a dead issue since the Nullification Crisis of 1832, and has received no legal support since the 1840s (a dissenting opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) 41 U.S. 539.)

Southern racists opposed to the Civil Rights Acts tried to revive this idea in the 1950s and 60s, but they called it "interposition" instead. It was invalid then too.

This isn't going to go anywhere.

sadly, you are probably right, but at least the state legislatures are trying to reign in the Federal overreach in the manner that they are limited to.

[SnyderShrugged]

You are full of :pooh:. And you've had your nose rubbed in the part of the Constitution that says so.

please show me where?

[armstrong001]

We have definitely exited the world of constitutional law as it has developed over the past 220 years, and entered the world of "constitutional law as I wish it was if we started all over again from scratch."

State nullification of federal law has been a dead issue since the Nullification Crisis of 1832, and has received no legal support since the 1840s (a dissenting opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) 41 U.S. 539.)

Southern racists opposed to the Civil Rights Acts tried to revive this idea in the 1950s and 60s, but they called it "interposition" instead. It was invalid then too.

This isn't going to go anywhere.

State nullification has been a dead issue and will continue to be so until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. If they rule in favor of the Federal government, then it will have continued to have no legal support and you can crow all you want about the feds putting the states back where they belong. If they rule in favor of Montana, it will no longer be a dead issue. It doesn't hurt anything to bring up the question though.

[Larry]

please show me where?

Article VI: Legal Status of the Constitution

Clause 1:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 2:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Larry]

You misunderstand me. (my fault as I am trying to squeeze posts in at the office)

Let me try to clarify.

I am not saying that the Feds need "permission", I am only saying that if the Feds overreach their prescribed boundaries, then the county sherriff has the right to protect people in his jurisdiction from tyranny and that he has the express authority to do so.

Show me where.

[The Evil Genius]

If the SC were to ever rule in favor of the states on this issue - I can see Congress coming up with something similar to the National Minimum Drinking Age act that ties federal levels of gun regulation (or farm regulation, or whatever) to a form of Federal Funding. And much like the National Minimum Drinking Age act, failure to abide by those federal policies would result in a sizable reduction of federal funding.

[armstrong001]

No, it cannot.

The person who's being prosecuted has the right to claim that a law is unconstitutional. If he makes that claim, then the courts will rule on whether it's constitutional or not.

And they will make that decision completely without regard to any state law whatsoever. Because state law is completely irrelevant when a federal court is determining if a federal law violates the federal constitution.

A law is either constitutional, or it isn't. It isn't "constitutional, unless the state legislature thinks otherwise".

As I've said before, I am not a constitutional scholar. Perhaps you can explain why the states cannot make this claim, since Article III section 2 states:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party

If a State brings suit against the federal government, then the United States would become a party to the suit. It seems like states have just as much right to challenge constitutionality as individuals when they are party to the Constitution. It seems rather odd to say that the Constitution grants rights to the States, but then gives them no recourse when those rights are claimed to be violated.

If a State believes its rights are violated (such as with the case of intrastate commerce) they should have just as much right to address their grievance to those that decide such matters as an idividual.

I understand where you're coming from. I just can't see why States don't have the same right to challenge unconstitutional Federal laws as individuals do.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You misunderstand me. (my fault as I am trying to squeeze posts in at the office)

Let me try to clarify.

I am not saying that the Feds need "permission", I am only saying that if the Feds overreach their prescribed boundaries, then the county sherriff has the right to protect people in his jurisdiction from tyranny and that he has the express authority to do so.

sorry for the lack of explanation earlier. not much time free to do this.

This goes back to Andrew Jackson and was decided by him.

No, the sheriff does not have the right to stop the FBI from arresting someone.

Cite any case or statute which says otherwise.

[JohnLockesGhost]

We have definitely exited the world of constitutional law as it has developed over the past 220 years, and entered the world of "constitutional law as I wish it was if we started all over again from scratch."

State nullification of federal law has been a dead issue since the Nullification Crisis of 1832, and has received no legal support since the 1840s (a dissenting opinion in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) 41 U.S. 539.)

This isn't going to go anywhere.

Well, Jefferson and Madison thought it was a proper recourse for states who opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. I know it's uncouth to cite those old, dead guys' opinions, but there it is.

Additionally, I think the idea of Nullification should be revived especially since the passage of the 17th Amendment. In the 19th century (before the 17th passage and ratification), a state government who opposed a certain federal power grab could make sure the Senator(s) they sent to Washington would oppose the law with as much gusto as seen appropriate. The filibuster could be used by senators as a last ditch to protect what was seen as sovereign state authority.

However, today senators are popularly elected and are nothing more than super-representatives. The state governments no longer have recourse to oppose federal power grabs, except trying to win the national popularity contests, and they're just so tedious.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

As I've said before, I am not a constitutional scholar. Perhaps you can explain why the states cannot make this claim, since Article III section 2 states:

If a State brings suit against the federal government, then the United States would become a party to the suit. It seems like states have just as much right to challenge constitutionality as individuals when they are party to the Constitution. It seems rather odd to say that the Constitution grants rights to the States, but then gives them no recourse when those rights are claimed to be violated.

If a State believes its rights are violated (such as with the case of intrastate commerce) they should have just as much right to address their grievance to those that decide such matters as an idividual.

I understand where you're coming from. I just can't see why States don't have the same right to challenge unconstitutional Federal laws as individuals do.

Because they lack standing.

The 11th Amendment prohibits citizens from one state from suing a sister state or its own state in Federal Court.

States can sue sister states in the Supreme Court under parens patriae.

However, a state cannot sue under a parens patriae theory to protect the rights of its own citizens against the federal government (Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 US 447 (1923)).

Similarly, a taxpayer rarely has standing to challenge a tax or spending statute unless there is some specific nexus that makes them unique.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Well, Jefferson and Madison thought it was a proper recourse for states who opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. I know it's uncouth to cite those old, dead guys' opinions, but there it is.

Additionally, I think the idea of Nullification should be revived especially since the passage of the 17th Amendment. In the 19th century (before the 17th passage and ratification), a state government who opposed a certain federal power grab could make sure the Senator(s) they sent to Washington would oppose the law with as much gusto as seen appropriate. The filibuster could be used by senators as a last ditch to protect what was seen as sovereign state authority.

However, today senators are popularly elected and are nothing more than super-representatives. The state governments no longer have recourse to oppose federal power grabs, except trying to win the national popularity contests, and they're just so tedious.

It's funny that you would cite the filibuster when that is a Senate power created by Senate rules, not the Constitution. Just saying.

[JohnLockesGhost]

It's funny that you would cite the filibuster when that is a Senate power created by Senate rules' date=' not the Constitution. Just saying.[/quote']

Well, the rules regarding a filibuster were pretty favorable to dissent back then. The 2/3 cloture vote rule didn't come about until 1917. Not coincidentally just a few years of the 17th Amendment was past.

[armstrong001]

Because they lack standing.

The 11th Amendment prohibits citizens from one state from suing a sister state or its own state in Federal Court.

States can sue sister states in the Supreme Court under parens patriae.

However' date=' a state cannot sue under a parens patriae theory to protect the rights of its own citizens against the federal government (Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 US 447 (1923)).

Similarly, a taxpayer rarely has standing to challenge a tax or spending statute unless there is some specific nexus that makes them unique.[/quote']

But then why can't the state sue on the grounds that the federal government is violating its right to regulate commerce within its own borders? And couldn't the Supreme Court reverse its decision that the State cannot represent its citizens? I mean, they decided one way before. I don't see why they couldn't decide the other way now.

[SnyderShrugged]

Show me where.

I did with Printz vs USA (albeit a little cloudy, it appears!)

[SnyderShrugged]

again, the supremacy clause is only valid if there federal action is considered constitutional. If the SC upholds the Montana law, then they are in effect saying that the supremecy clause is invalid in this case (and I suspect many others) because the feds reached too far.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I did with Printz vs USA (albeit a little cloudy, it appears!)

Show me where in a case that you are reading correctly.

[SnyderShrugged]

This goes back to Andrew Jackson and was decided by him.

No' date=' the sheriff does not have the right to stop the FBI from arresting someone.

Cite any case or statute which says otherwise.[/quote']

Andrew jackson was a nationalist who expressed an opinion on the matter. He had no constitutional power to determine law at that time.

I already cited a case which you choose to ignore that asserts the rights of the county sheriff.

(BTW, there is a really good book about Sheriff mack(sp?) on just how powerful the county sherriff is. I was stunned to learn it!)