Feds Override Montana State Law

[CrimsonWhite]

Those cases aren't the Constitution.

Disagree while you may, or I may, they are decided upon interpretation of the Constitution.

Wickard v. Filburn forayed into intrastate commerce, hence setting precedent.

Unconstitutional precedent.

See you are just making shit up now. That is weak. That is a legal contradicton in terms.

 

[Arawyn]

Those cases aren't the Constitution.

Disagree while you may, or I may, they are decided upon interpretation of the Constitution.

Wickard v. Filburn forayed into intrastate commerce, hence setting precedent.

Unconstitutional precedent.

I don't want to seem a bitch when I say this, because I do agree that there are a lot of precedents/decisions that I think are not in keeping with the Constitution; however, it doesn't make these decisions any less enforceable.

Until the precedent is overturned by either statute, or newer case law, the effect of the decision and law remains enforceable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No they aren't. They are the courts interpretation of such. That is the Constitutonal Authority of the Courts.

So you're saying that however they interpret it must be correct? It makes no sense to give just one side in any compact the explicit power to interpret the compact, because they'll simply interpret it in their favor. That's why the state of Montana is well within its right to nullify any unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government, such as the government attempting to regulate intrastate commerce.

Until overturned, yes. So tell me there big guy. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment is the States right to nullify?

I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.

That's not how the Constitution works. The powers of the federal government must be explicitly stated, whereas the powers of the state governments or the people do not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison, Federalist No. 45

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Disagree while you may, or I may, they are decided upon interpretation of the Constitution.

Wickard v. Filburn forayed into intrastate commerce, hence setting precedent.

Unconstitutional precedent.

See you are just making shit up now. That is weak. That is a legal contradicton in terms.

It would be a contradiction if I had said an amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional. However, I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court can, and often does, violate the Constitution, therefore making their rulings unconstitutional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Disagree while you may, or I may, they are decided upon interpretation of the Constitution.

Wickard v. Filburn forayed into intrastate commerce, hence setting precedent.

Unconstitutional precedent.

I don't want to seem a bitch when I say this, because I do agree that there are a lot of precedents/decisions that I think are not in keeping with the Constitution; however, it doesn't make these decisions any less enforceable.

Until the precedent is overturned by either statute, or newer case law, the effect of the decision and law remains enforceable.

Or by nullification, as is the case with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

 

[Arawyn]

So you're saying that however they interpret it must be correct? It makes no sense to give just one side in any compact the explicit power to interpret the compact, because they'll simply interpret it in their favor. That's why the state of Montana is well within its right to nullify any unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government, such as the government attempting to regulate intrastate commerce.

Until overturned, yes. So tell me there big guy. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment is the States right to nullify?

I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.

That's not how the Constitution works. The powers of the federal government must be explicitly stated, whereas the powers of the state governments or the people do not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Unfortunately, your interpretation of the Constitution is NOT upheld by case law.

 

[Arawyn]

Unconstitutional precedent.

I don't want to seem a bitch when I say this, because I do agree that there are a lot of precedents/decisions that I think are not in keeping with the Constitution; however, it doesn't make these decisions any less enforceable.

Until the precedent is overturned by either statute, or newer case law, the effect of the decision and law remains enforceable.

Or by nullification, as is the case with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

A state law declaring nullification is not sufficient to overturn precedent......

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So you're saying that however they interpret it must be correct? It makes no sense to give just one side in any compact the explicit power to interpret the compact, because they'll simply interpret it in their favor. That's why the state of Montana is well within its right to nullify any unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government, such as the government attempting to regulate intrastate commerce.

Until overturned, yes. So tell me there big guy. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment is the States right to nullify?

I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.

That's not how the Constitution works. The powers of the federal government must be explicitly stated, whereas the powers of the state governments or the people do not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

Right and wrong. It only works that way when the US government does not have a vested interest in the commerce at hand. For instance, the medicinal marijuana cases in Cali. In this case Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States applies.

"Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related
that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress,
and not the State, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for
otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority
and the State, and not the Nation, would be supreme within the national field."

The interstate and intrastate transactions of firearms are so related in the sense that ATF uses the informaton on the sale of firearms to track criminals. Therefore, the Supremacy Clause applies and overrules any percieved rights that you think that the state of Montana has here.

 

[Arawyn]

Unconstitutional precedent.

See you are just making shit up now. That is weak. That is a legal contradicton in terms.

It would be a contradiction if I had said an amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional. However, I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court can, and often does, violate the Constitution, therefore making their rulings unconstitutional.

And that might be your BELIEF......but your belief has not the effect of law behind it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Until overturned, yes. So tell me there big guy. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment is the States right to nullify?

I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.

That's not how the Constitution works. The powers of the federal government must be explicitly stated, whereas the powers of the state governments or the people do not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Unfortunately, your interpretation of the Constitution is NOT upheld by case law.

That we can certainly agree on.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Unconstitutional precedent.

I don't want to seem a bitch when I say this, because I do agree that there are a lot of precedents/decisions that I think are not in keeping with the Constitution; however, it doesn't make these decisions any less enforceable.

Until the precedent is overturned by either statute, or newer case law, the effect of the decision and law remains enforceable.

Or by nullification, as is the case with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

Thank god the Constitution doesn't grant you the authority to interpret. Nullification(as if it actually exists in any real sense) is not sufficient enought to overturn a precedent set by the High Court.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't want to seem a bitch when I say this, because I do agree that there are a lot of precedents/decisions that I think are not in keeping with the Constitution; however, it doesn't make these decisions any less enforceable.

Until the precedent is overturned by either statute, or newer case law, the effect of the decision and law remains enforceable.

Or by nullification, as is the case with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

A state law declaring nullification is not sufficient to overturn precedent......

You're correct. My post before was wrong. Nullification likely wouldn't overturn precedent, however, despite the precedent a state could nullify a law that it believes violates the Constitution.

 

[Arawyn]

Until overturned, yes. So tell me there big guy. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment is the States right to nullify?

I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.

That's not how the Constitution works. The powers of the federal government must be explicitly stated, whereas the powers of the state governments or the people do not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

Right and wrong. It only works that way when the US government does not have a vested interest in the commerce at hand. For instance, the medicinal marijuana cases in Cali. In this case Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States applies.

"Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related
that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress,
and not the State, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for
otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority
and the State, and not the Nation, would be supreme within the national field."

The interstate and intrastate transactions of firearms are so related in the sense that ATF uses the informaton on the sale of firearms to track criminals. Therefore, the Supremacy Clause applies and overrules any percieved rights that you think that the state of Montana has here.

As well as Gonzales v. Raich

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Or by nullification, as is the case with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

A state law declaring nullification is not sufficient to overturn precedent......

You're correct. My post before was wrong. Nullification likely wouldn't overturn precedent, however, despite the precedent a state could nullify a law that it believes violates the Constitution.

Says who?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Unconstitutional precedent.

See you are just making shit up now. That is weak. That is a legal contradicton in terms.

It would be a contradiction if I had said an amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional. However, I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court can, and often does, violate the Constitution, therefore making their rulings unconstitutional.

You are makng a mockery of my professon by not even grasping the simplest of concepts.

 

[Arawyn]

Or by nullification, as is the case with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.

A state law declaring nullification is not sufficient to overturn precedent......

You're correct. My post before was wrong. Nullification likely wouldn't overturn precedent, however, despite the precedent a state could nullify a law that it believes violates the Constitution.

And get shot down.......

 

[Arawyn]

See you are just making shit up now. That is weak. That is a legal contradicton in terms.

It would be a contradiction if I had said an amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional. However, I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court can, and often does, violate the Constitution, therefore making their rulings unconstitutional.

You are makng a mockery of my professon by not even grasping the simplest of concepts.

Mockery would probably only exist if this opinion was held by someone in the profession, me thinks.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

It would be a contradiction if I had said an amendment to the Constitution was unconstitutional. However, I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court can, and often does, violate the Constitution, therefore making their rulings unconstitutional.

You are makng a mockery of my professon by not even grasping the simplest of concepts.

Mockery would probably only exist if this opinion was held by someone in the profession, me thinks.

Good point.

This isn't my first rodeo with Kevin. He and I have gone around before. He argues from his heart, which I admire, but that isn't always legally prudent in cases of Constitutionality I agree wth him more than I wll ever let him know.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Until overturned, yes. So tell me there big guy. Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other Amendment is the States right to nullify?

I'll give you a hint. It doesn't exist.

That's not how the Constitution works. The powers of the federal government must be explicitly stated, whereas the powers of the state governments or the people do not.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th Amendment

Right and wrong. It only works that way when the US government does not have a vested interest in the commerce at hand. For instance, the medicinal marijuana cases in Cali. In this case Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States applies.

"Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related
that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress,
and not the State, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for
otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority
and the State, and not the Nation, would be supreme within the national field."

The interstate and intrastate transactions of firearms are so related in the sense that ATF uses the informaton on the sale of firearms to track criminals. Therefore, the Supremacy Clause applies and overrules any percieved rights that you think that the state of Montana has here.

The original idea behind regulating interstate commerce was to make commerce regular, meaning that the federal government could stop interstate protectionism. The founders didn't believe the federal government should have a vested interest in the commerce only that they should have the power to stop one state from enacting tariffs on other states. That along with not being given the power to regulate intrastate commerce in any way shape or form, and being explicitly denied the right to regulate firearms at all, means that Montana is absolutely within their right to nullify the federal government's law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A state law declaring nullification is not sufficient to overturn precedent......

You're correct. My post before was wrong. Nullification likely wouldn't overturn precedent, however, despite the precedent a state could nullify a law that it believes violates the Constitution.

Says who?

The Constitution.