Feds Override Montana State Law

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Jillian had a similar complaint, I believe.

 

[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.

And get shot down.......

The federal government is the agent of the states and has no authority to stop the states from nullifying an unconstitutional law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.......

The federal government is the agent of the states and has no authority to stop the states from nullifying an unconstitutional law.

Says who?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I'm guessing Judge Andrew P. Napolitano would agree with me.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

Where?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Now I'm just going to assume you always agree with me and are just testing me to keep me on my toes.

 

[Arawyn]

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.

Completely understood.....I agree with Kevin's sentiment.....there are many cases I disagree with SCOTUS interpretations as well. But their decisions are NOT unConsitutional per se, just IMO, interpreted badly to hopefully find its way into the annals of history, like Plessy

 

[Arawyn]

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.

Legislative intent is not the sole deciding factor though.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

I'm guessing Judge Andrew P. Napolitano would agree with me.

Screw that guy. He gave up hs bench for a TV Show. He sold out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And get shot down.......

The federal government is the agent of the states and has no authority to stop the states from nullifying an unconstitutional law.

Says who?

The federal government was created by the states to act as their agent, otherwise there would have been no need for a federal government and the individual states could have remained separate countries.

"The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former." - James Madison, The Federalist No. 45

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Says who?

The Constitution.

Where?

The 10th Amendment says that the states have any power not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that the states may not nullify a federal law that they believe unconstitutional.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

Show me the Constitutional right to nullify.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.



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.

Legislative intent is not the sole deciding factor though.

If we do not go with original intent then we are committing fraud. The states ratified the Constitution with certain understandings of how it was going to be interpreted, and to change the meaning after the fact is fraud.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

I'm guessing Judge Andrew P. Napolitano would agree with me.

Screw that guy. He gave up hs bench for a TV Show. He sold out.

Why shouldn't he do what he wants to do?

 

[Arawyn]

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.......

The federal government is the agent of the states and has no authority to stop the states from nullifying an unconstitutional law.

The 10th is a toothless amendement in this day and age. Gonzales v. Raich

YOUR closest argument could rest on New York v. United States but it would essentially carry no weight.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.



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.

Show me the Constitutional right to nullify.

10th Amendment.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The Constitution.

Where?

The 10th Amendment says that the states have any power not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that the states may not nullify a federal law that they believe unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not deny the States the right to deal drugs, either. Maybe I should propose the State of Illinois get into the coca business. After all we are in debt.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And get shot down.......

The federal government is the agent of the states and has no authority to stop the states from nullifying an unconstitutional law.

The 10th is a toothless amendement in this day and age. Gonzales v. Raich

YOUR closest argument could rest on New York v. United States but it would essentially carry no weight.

That would be because the Supreme Court decided that the 10th limited their power too much, so they decided to make it toothless. Unluckily for them, the only way to actually make the 10th toothless would be to pass an amendment repealing it.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Where?

The 10th Amendment says that the states have any power not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that the states may not nullify a federal law that they believe unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not deny the States the right to deal drugs, either. Maybe I should propose the State of Illinois get into the coca business. After all we are in debt.

Furthermore, you keep forgetting about the Supremacy Clause. The states cannot pass laws that contradict federal law. Simple as that. Case closed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where?

The 10th Amendment says that the states have any power not explicitly denied to them in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say that the states may not nullify a federal law that they believe unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not deny the States the right to deal drugs, either. Maybe I should propose the State of Illinois get into the coca business. After all we are in debt.

You want to bring up a drug argument with a Libertarian? If the state of Illinois wants to deal drugs then I'm guessing an amendment to their state constitution would be necessary, but other than that I see no problem with it. I'm guessing that amendment would come no where near passing, however.