Feds Override Montana State Law

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well considering the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate intrastate commerce or guns any law that attempts to do so is not in pursuance of the Constitution. Historically the states had a right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws which is what the Montana Firearms Freedom Act essentially did.

When was this? Pre 14th Amendment?

As for intrastate commerce, that is a valid argument, but it is weak in the face of a Supremacy Clause that is as old as the document itself.

As I said before, the Supremacy Clause only makes laws that the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to enforce supreme over state law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Well considering the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate intrastate commerce or guns any law that attempts to do so is not in pursuance of the Constitution. Historically the states had a right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws which is what the Montana Firearms Freedom Act essentially did.

When was this? Pre 14th Amendment?

As for intrastate commerce, that is a valid argument, but it is weak in the face of a Supremacy Clause that is as old as the document itself.

The 14th Amendment doesn't stop nullification.

Show me where a State succesfully nullified a federal law.

Oh, and Jefferson wasn't really that succesful considering he reversed the two bills that he wrote once in office.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When was this? Pre 14th Amendment?

As for intrastate commerce, that is a valid argument, but it is weak in the face of a Supremacy Clause that is as old as the document itself.

The 14th Amendment doesn't stop nullification.

Show me where a State succesfully nullified a federal law.

Oh, and Jefferson wasn't really that succesful considering he reversed the two bills that he wrote once in office.

In 1809 Massachusetts nullified Jefferson's embargo act against Great Britain.

"While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

All of New England eventually nullified the embargo act. New England also refused to send militia troops to fight in the War of 1812. Connecticut released this statement:

"But it must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed."

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The 14th Amendment doesn't stop nullification.

Show me where a State succesfully nullified a federal law.

Oh, and Jefferson wasn't really that succesful considering he reversed the two bills that he wrote once in office.

In 1809 Massachusetts nullified Jefferson's embargo act against Great Britain.

"While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

All of New England eventually nullified the embargo act. New England also refused to send militia troops to fight in the War of 1812. Connecticut released this statement:

"But it must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed."

And a nullifcation crisis helped to bring the nation to war. 1833 was in many ways a preparation for 1860.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Show me where a State succesfully nullified a federal law.

Oh, and Jefferson wasn't really that succesful considering he reversed the two bills that he wrote once in office.

In 1809 Massachusetts nullified Jefferson's embargo act against Great Britain.

"While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

All of New England eventually nullified the embargo act. New England also refused to send militia troops to fight in the War of 1812. Connecticut released this statement:

"But it must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed."

And a nullifcation crisis helped to bring the nation to war. 1833 was in many ways a preparation for 1860.

Abraham Lincoln brought the nation to war, not the states practicing their rights.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

In 1809 Massachusetts nullified Jefferson's embargo act against Great Britain.

"While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."

All of New England eventually nullified the embargo act. New England also refused to send militia troops to fight in the War of 1812. Connecticut released this statement:

"But it must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed."

And a nullifcation crisis helped to bring the nation to war. 1833 was in many ways a preparation for 1860.

Abraham Lincoln brought the nation to war, not the states practicing their rights.

In your opinion. Thats the problem I have with Libertarinism. The belief that rights are limitless with no regard for responsibity is dangerous.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And a nullifcation crisis helped to bring the nation to war. 1833 was in many ways a preparation for 1860.

Abraham Lincoln brought the nation to war, not the states practicing their rights.

In your opinion. Thats the problem I have with Libertarinism. The belief that rights are limitless with no regard for responsibity is dangerous.

Your rights aren't limitless, you can't infringe on the rights of anyone else. At any rate, the states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and they have the right to secede.

 

[jillian]

You have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this. Read it again slowly and try again.

he grossly misinterprets the meaning every time he tries to talk about the constitution.

but don't worry. he'll tell you caselaw doesn't matter because he WANTS the constitution to mean certain things.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this. Read it again slowly and try again.

he grossly misinterprets the meaning every time he tries to talk about the constitution.

but don't worry. he'll tell you caselaw doesn't matter because he WANTS the constitution to mean certain things.

Yes, I believe the founders took what I personally wanted into consideration when they were drafting the Constitution.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Abraham Lincoln brought the nation to war, not the states practicing their rights.

In your opinion. Thats the problem I have with Libertarinism. The belief that rights are limitless with no regard for responsibity is dangerous.

Your rights aren't limitless, you can't infringe on the rights of anyone else. At any rate, the states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and they have the right to secede.

Yet they have failed every time they have tried to do so, on anything that mattered.

Whether by force or by law, and whether you agree wth it or not, we are one Nation of states, not a collection of sovereign states. That was teh purpose of the Supremacy clause. To allow for a central government to reign supreme.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

You have grossly misinterpreted the meaning of this. Read it again slowly and try again.

he grossly misinterprets the meaning every time he tries to talk about the constitution.

but don't worry. he'll tell you caselaw doesn't matter because he WANTS the constitution to mean certain things.

Yes, I believe the founders took what I personally wanted into consideration when they were drafting the Constitution.

You have an over inflated sense of self.

Oh, and case law is binding federal law, whether you like it or not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In your opinion. Thats the problem I have with Libertarinism. The belief that rights are limitless with no regard for responsibity is dangerous.

Your rights aren't limitless, you can't infringe on the rights of anyone else. At any rate, the states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and they have the right to secede.

Yet they have failed every time they have tried to do so, on anything that mattered.

Whether by force or by law, and whether you agree wth it or not, we are one Nation of states, not a collection of sovereign states. That was teh purpose of the Supremacy clause. To allow for a central government to reign supreme.

I believe I just cited some examples of nullification being adhered to, and they certainly weren't small issues.

The states were considered sovereign and independent up until Lincoln's war when he essentially destroyed federalism, and the Supremacy Clause does not make anything the federal government does supreme over the states. Why would the founders, who had a healthy distrust of an overly powerful central government, give the central government that kind of power over the states that they considered independent and sovereign? It makes no sense.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Your rights aren't limitless, you can't infringe on the rights of anyone else. At any rate, the states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and they have the right to secede.

Yet they have failed every time they have tried to do so, on anything that mattered.

Whether by force or by law, and whether you agree wth it or not, we are one Nation of states, not a collection of sovereign states. That was teh purpose of the Supremacy clause. To allow for a central government to reign supreme.

I believe I just cited some examples of nullification being adhered to, and they certainly weren't small issues.

The states were considered sovereign and independent up until Lincoln's war when he essentially destroyed federalism, and the Supremacy Clause does not make anything the federal government does supreme over the states. Why would the founders, who had a healthy distrust of an overly powerful central government, give the central government that kind of power over the states that they considered independent and sovereign? It makes no sense.

Yet that is exactly what they did. And yes you cited examples where the central government was weak and in its infancy. Not all of the founders had a mistrust of a central government. Not even a majority, that s the reason for the compromises that became our Constitution. And Lincoln's war was started by my home state of South Carolina. Cause and Effect. Our Nullification crisis was a warm up for April of 1861. Calhoun was still beloved when the cannons went off in Charleston. Was the war necessary? Do you agree with the outcome? No. If you want states right, then raise a majority and give them the limtless rights that you desire. I for one, will stay with a strong central government, because I like things like a standng Army, that actually has teeth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

he grossly misinterprets the meaning every time he tries to talk about the constitution.

but don't worry. he'll tell you caselaw doesn't matter because he WANTS the constitution to mean certain things.

Yes, I believe the founders took what I personally wanted into consideration when they were drafting the Constitution.

You have an over inflated sense of self.

Oh, and case law is binding federal law, whether you like it or not.

Clearly. It's me that follows jillian around and tries to denigrate anything she says on the Constitution.

I'm aware that caselaw is binding, no argument there. I'm not unaware of reality, I simply express my opinion on how things should be or how they're supposed to be.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Yes, I believe the founders took what I personally wanted into consideration when they were drafting the Constitution.

You have an over inflated sense of self.

Oh, and case law is binding federal law, whether you like it or not.

Clearly. It's me that follows jillian around and tries to denigrate anything she says on the Constitution.

I'm aware that caselaw is binding, no argument there. I'm not unaware of reality, I simply express my opinion on how things should be or how they're supposed to be.

Ahh, sarcasm. I get it now.

As for case law. It is what was intended. Otherwse the court system would not be what it was desgned to be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet they have failed every time they have tried to do so, on anything that mattered.

Whether by force or by law, and whether you agree wth it or not, we are one Nation of states, not a collection of sovereign states. That was teh purpose of the Supremacy clause. To allow for a central government to reign supreme.

I believe I just cited some examples of nullification being adhered to, and they certainly weren't small issues.

The states were considered sovereign and independent up until Lincoln's war when he essentially destroyed federalism, and the Supremacy Clause does not make anything the federal government does supreme over the states. Why would the founders, who had a healthy distrust of an overly powerful central government, give the central government that kind of power over the states that they considered independent and sovereign? It makes no sense.

Yet that is exactly what they did. And yes you cited examples where the central government was weak and in its infancy. Not all of the founders had a mistrust of a central government. Not even a majority, that s the reason for the compromises that became our Constitution. And Lincoln's war was started by my home state of South Carolina. Cause and Effect. Our Nullification crisis was a warm up for April of 1861. Calhoun was still beloved when the cannons went off in Charleston. Was the war necessary? Do you agree with the outcome? No. If you want states right, then raise a majority and give them the limtless rights that you desire. I for one, will stay with a strong central government, because I like things like a standng Army, that actually has teeth.

That's fine, but it's a bit foolish to say that a majority of the founders didn't distrust a strong central government. Alexander Hamilton, the founding father of big government in my opinion, would likely be up in arms over the size of today's federal government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have an over inflated sense of self.

Oh, and case law is binding federal law, whether you like it or not.

Clearly. It's me that follows jillian around and tries to denigrate anything she says on the Constitution.

I'm aware that caselaw is binding, no argument there. I'm not unaware of reality, I simply express my opinion on how things should be or how they're supposed to be.

Ahh, sarcasm. I get it now.

As for case law. It is what was intended. Otherwse the court system would not be what it was desgned to be.

There could be an argument that the court system is not what it was intended to be.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I believe I just cited some examples of nullification being adhered to, and they certainly weren't small issues.

The states were considered sovereign and independent up until Lincoln's war when he essentially destroyed federalism, and the Supremacy Clause does not make anything the federal government does supreme over the states. Why would the founders, who had a healthy distrust of an overly powerful central government, give the central government that kind of power over the states that they considered independent and sovereign? It makes no sense.

Yet that is exactly what they did. And yes you cited examples where the central government was weak and in its infancy. Not all of the founders had a mistrust of a central government. Not even a majority, that s the reason for the compromises that became our Constitution. And Lincoln's war was started by my home state of South Carolina. Cause and Effect. Our Nullification crisis was a warm up for April of 1861. Calhoun was still beloved when the cannons went off in Charleston. Was the war necessary? Do you agree with the outcome? No. If you want states right, then raise a majority and give them the limtless rights that you desire. I for one, will stay with a strong central government, because I like things like a standng Army, that actually has teeth.

That's fine, but it's a bit foolish to say that a majority of the founders didn't distrust a strong central government. Alexander Hamilton, the founding father of big government in my opinion, would likely be up in arms over the size of today's federal government.

I agree, but don't think for a second that did not want the central government strong, they just wanted it limited. I think time has shown that that is just not possible, but what a wonderful it would be.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet that is exactly what they did. And yes you cited examples where the central government was weak and in its infancy. Not all of the founders had a mistrust of a central government. Not even a majority, that s the reason for the compromises that became our Constitution. And Lincoln's war was started by my home state of South Carolina. Cause and Effect. Our Nullification crisis was a warm up for April of 1861. Calhoun was still beloved when the cannons went off in Charleston. Was the war necessary? Do you agree with the outcome? No. If you want states right, then raise a majority and give them the limtless rights that you desire. I for one, will stay with a strong central government, because I like things like a standng Army, that actually has teeth.

That's fine, but it's a bit foolish to say that a majority of the founders didn't distrust a strong central government. Alexander Hamilton, the founding father of big government in my opinion, would likely be up in arms over the size of today's federal government.

I agree, but don't think for a second that did not want the central government strong, they just wanted it limited. I think time has shown that that is just not possible, but what a wonderful it would be.

I wouldn't say it's not possible, simply not probable.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[CrimsonWhite]

That's fine, but it's a bit foolish to say that a majority of the founders didn't distrust a strong central government. Alexander Hamilton, the founding father of big government in my opinion, would likely be up in arms over the size of today's federal government.

I agree, but don't think for a second that did not want the central government strong, they just wanted it limited. I think time has shown that that is just not possible, but what a wonderful it would be.

I wouldn't say it's not possible, simply not probable.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was a contradiction within himself. He could have been the best example for both sides of this issue.