Feds Override Montana State Law

[Arawyn]

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.

No, sorry.

First, fraud was more narrowly defined during the days of the creation of the Constitution. And your assertion would of fraud would thus fail.......going by your logic.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Federal law is only supreme over state law if it's based on the Constitution. Drug nor firearm regulation is based on the Constitution, and is therefore not supreme.

 

[Arawyn]

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.

Toothless, only ruled on twice in at least 50 to 60 years.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

Federal law is only supreme over state law if it's based on the Constitution. Drug nor firearm regulation is based on the Constitution, and is therefore not supreme.

Bullshit. That is opinion not fact. All federal law is Consititutional until proven otherwise.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

No, sorry.

First, fraud was more narrowly defined during the days of the creation of the Constitution. And your assertion would of fraud would thus fail.......going by your logic.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain more fully. In my defense I'll quote the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

 

[Arawyn]

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.

Now, if IL decides to join what Cali is considering I'll know the world is fucked.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Show me the Constitutional right to nullify.

10th Amendment.

Toothless, only ruled on twice in at least 50 to 60 years.

Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson for instance, believed the 10th Amendment to be the most important, and since it has not been repealed is obviously not "toothless."

 

[CrimsonWhite]

10th Amendment.

Toothless, only ruled on twice in at least 50 to 60 years.

Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson for instance, believed the 10th Amendment to be the most important, and since it has not been repealed is obviously not "toothless."

I find it amazing that a strict constitutionalist refers to Jefferson so much.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Federal law is only supreme over state law if it's based on the Constitution. Drug nor firearm regulation is based on the Constitution, and is therefore not supreme.

Bullshit. That is opinion not fact. All federal law is Consititutional until proven otherwise.

But why does the federal government have a monopoly on the right to define what is or is not constitutional? It makes no sense and is the reason for the explosion in the size and scope of the federal government since the Civil War.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Toothless, only ruled on twice in at least 50 to 60 years.

Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson for instance, believed the 10th Amendment to be the most important, and since it has not been repealed is obviously not "toothless."

I find it amazing that a strict constitutionalist refers to Jefferson so much.

I've referred to Madison in the past, as well as even Alexander Hamilton. I'm well aware of Jefferson's faults as President.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Federal law is only supreme over state law if it's based on the Constitution. Drug nor firearm regulation is based on the Constitution, and is therefore not supreme.

Bullshit. That is opinion not fact. All federal law is Consititutional until proven otherwise.

But why does the federal government have a monopoly on the right to define what is or is not constitutional? It makes no sense and is the reason for the explosion in the size and scope of the federal government since the Civil War.

The federal government doesn't have the monopoly. The federal courts do. More specifically, the High Court and its inferior courts. This is so, because the US Constitution grants it this power.

 

[Arawyn]

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.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with SCOTUS decisions, and I ASSume you are anti Marbury v. Madison the judiciary was part of the checks and balances.

Your argument that case law (from SCOTUS) is unConstitutinal is essentially chicken v. egg. The decisions might be wrongly decided, based upon our views of law and the Constitution but it doesn't make the decisions unConstitutional.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson for instance, believed the 10th Amendment to be the most important, and since it has not been repealed is obviously not "toothless."

I find it amazing that a strict constitutionalist refers to Jefferson so much.

I've referred to Madison in the past, as well as even Alexander Hamilton. I'm well aware of Jefferson's faults as President.

Not just as President.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Bullshit. That is opinion not fact. All federal law is Consititutional until proven otherwise.

But why does the federal government have a monopoly on the right to define what is or is not constitutional? It makes no sense and is the reason for the explosion in the size and scope of the federal government since the Civil War.

The federal government doesn't have the monopoly. The federal court do. More specifically, the High Court and its inferior courts. This is so, because the US Consttution grants it this power.

And are the federal courts not a part of the federal government? They granted themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison, the founders intended for the states to have a say in the constitutionality of a law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with SCOTUS decisions, and I ASSume you are anti Marbury v. Madison the judiciary was part of the checks and balances.

Your argument that case law (from SCOTUS) is unConstitutinal is essentially chicken v. egg. The decisions might be wrongly decided, based upon our views of law and the Constitution but it doesn't make the decisions unConstitutional.

Checks and balances are important of course, but far more important is a system of federalism.

An amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional because it becomes a part of the Constitution, not so with caselaw. The Supreme Court cannot just willy-nilly decide to change the meaning of the Constitution or miraculously find some hitherto unsuspected power of the federal government without an amendment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find it amazing that a strict constitutionalist refers to Jefferson so much.

I've referred to Madison in the past, as well as even Alexander Hamilton. I'm well aware of Jefferson's faults as President.

Not just as President.

Are you referring to his owning slaves?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

But why does the federal government have a monopoly on the right to define what is or is not constitutional? It makes no sense and is the reason for the explosion in the size and scope of the federal government since the Civil War.

The federal government doesn't have the monopoly. The federal court do. More specifically, the High Court and its inferior courts. This is so, because the US Consttution grants it this power.

And are the federal courts not a part of the federal government? They granted themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison, the founders intended for the states to have a say in the constitutionality of a law.

Chicken or the egg fallacy.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I've referred to Madison in the past, as well as even Alexander Hamilton. I'm well aware of Jefferson's faults as President.

Not just as President.

Are you referring to his owning slaves?

Among many, many other things. That however is a topic for another day.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The federal government doesn't have the monopoly. The federal court do. More specifically, the High Court and its inferior courts. This is so, because the US Consttution grants it this power.

And are the federal courts not a part of the federal government? They granted themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison, the founders intended for the states to have a say in the constitutionality of a law.

Chicken or the egg fallacy.

Well in this case we know that the states came before the federal government, and created the federal government. I doubt they intended for the federal government to be able to walk all over them.

 

[Arawyn]

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.

No, sorry.

First, fraud was more narrowly defined during the days of the creation of the Constitution. And your assertion would of fraud would thus fail.......going by your logic.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain more fully. In my defense I'll quote the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Let's just go by current defintion of fraud.......intentional deception.

The elements/tests, which I don't have handy any longer, to prevail, in courts, were much stricter than are today's tests *from memory*.

Still, regardless, you can't show fraud.