Supremacy Clause

[ogibillm]

Only Federal edicts and laws that are allowed to the fed are Constitutional. The States have the right to ignore Fed laws that are not powers granted to the fed by said Constitution.

if the federal laws are not constitutional the states can take that up in its proper place - the courts.

however, they do not have the right to 'ignore' anything.

Actually they do have the right to honor their laws until such time as a Court says otherwise.

you have that backwards. they can take it to court and get an injunction but they don't have the right to ignore anything unless the courts say so.

You see the fed would have to take them to Court over it, the State has no compelling interest in starting a Court case, as they believe their law is legal and appropriate.

again, that's just not the way the world works. no state can say that the enforcement of any federal law is illegal and it's lunacy to believe otherwise.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'll explain it. Someone has a baggie of pot. They have not violated state law they have violated federal law. They cannot be arrested by state authority. They can be arrested by federal authority. It has nothing to do with the commerce clause. It has nothing to do with the supremacy clause because there is no conflict of law. This is a separation of powers issue. A state has the same power to regulate guns as it has to regulate drugs. A state can absolutely say automatic weapons are legal in that state with those same weapons illegal under federal law.

 

[ogibillm]

I'll explain it. Someone has a baggie of pot. They have not violated state law they have violated federal law. They cannot be arrested by state authority. They can be arrested by federal authority. It has nothing to do with the commerce clause. It has nothing to do with the supremacy clause because there is no conflict of law. This is a separation of powers issue. A state has the same power to regulate guns as it has to regulate drugs. A state can absolutely say automatic weapons are legal in that state with those same weapons illegal under federal law.

the only thing i would add to that the state cannot make or enforce any law that says it is illegal to enforce federal law.

 

[jillian]

if they succeed from the Union first then it's OK.

no. they can't secede. if they try, they won't succeed.

 

[ogibillm]

if they succeed from the Union first then it's OK.

no. they can't secede. if they try, they won't succeed.

ahhh... i see what you did there

 

[emptystep]

if they succeed from the Union first then it's OK.

no. they can't secede. if they try, they won't succeed.

ahhh... i see what you did there

 

[Star]

.
Unconstitutional Texas Bill Would Make Enforcing Federal Gun Laws A Felony | NationofChange
Ian Millhiser
16 January 2013

Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), with the apparent support of at least one of Texas’ most powerful politicians, will introduce unconstitutional legislation subjecting federal law enforcement officers to arrest and prosecution if they enforce new gun safety laws in the Lone Star State:

<snip>


Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Interesting -- Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), wants to protect his view of the Constitution of the United States by introducing legislation to "undermine" the Constitution of the United States. Republicans aren't the protectors of the constitution they pretend to be.
.

Only Federal edicts and laws that are allowed to the fed are Constitutional. The States have the right to ignore Fed laws that are not powers granted to the fed by said Constitution.

Not so fast Gunny, it ain't that simple.

The SCOTUS has a different view and has set precedence for "muddy waters" and-----and even Republican hero Alex Jones had the following article posted on his own website back in 2010.

Because we're not allowed to post full articles, I snipped the last paragraph but you may want to check it out...



» Court Case On Gun Control and State Sovereignty are Popping Up Everywhere Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your min


Cassandra Anderson
Infowars.com
March 19, 2010


There are now 5 states, Wyoming, Montana, Tennessee, Utah and South Dakota, that have passed laws for self declared exemptions from federal gun regulations on weapons made, bought and used inside state borders, according to WND reporter, Bob Unruh. Wyoming’s new law includes language that makes it a felony for any U.S. agent to “enforce or attempt to enforce” federal firearm regulations, which could be punishable by a fine of $2000 and/or imprisonment.(1) This week, Wyoming passed a 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution as well.


Gun control is not only a 2nd Amendment issue, it also relates to other parts of the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In a conversation with G. Edward Griffin, he said that there are two competing philosophies about the Bill of Rights:

1. The states are sovereign and can do anything they want (so long as it does not involve a power delegated to the federal government by the Constitution). The Bill of Rights restricts only the federal government.

2. States also must adhere to the Bill of Rights the same as the federal government.

Mr. Griffin said that the last words of the 2nd Amendment: “… shall not be infringed” presents an ambiguity as to who would be infringing: the federal government? The state and local governments? However, he said that this question is answered by the 1st Amendment which begins with the words: “Congress shall make no law …” We conclude, therefore, that all of the following amendments carry the same clarification that it is CONGRESS that is being limited, not the states. This understanding supports the conclusion that the states, indeed, are free to do what they wish.

Chicago has had a gun ban for 27 years, and it now is being tested in the Supreme Court (McDonald vs. Chicago).(2) There is a real dilemma here. McDonald claims that his right to bear arms may not be infringed by local governments, even though the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect that right at the local level. Why not? Because, he says, the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause prohibits states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That makes sense as far as it goes, but it does not answer the question of whether or not the right to bear arms is a “law” and especially if it is a law in Illinois. So there is a great deal of wiggle room left for legal argument on both sides.

The bad news is that, regardless of how the decision turns out, American tradition will lose. If the Court rules in favor of the 14th Amendment, this could diminish states’ rights, and the fear is that new federal “rights” could be invented (such as the right to health care) and that states would be required to go along. If the Court rules in favor of states rights, then the right to bear arms is vulnerable to attack at the state level.

To further muddy the waters, there is a lawsuit in Montana against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for attempting to impose federal regulations of weapons made, bought and used within the state. The federal government asserts that the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8 ) allows it to regulate anything that is traded solely within a state because it affects commerce across state lines.(3) With this interpretation, there literally in nothing that can be considered outside interstate commerce. The federal government has used this interpretation for many years to rationalize authority over the states and, unfortunately, the Supreme Court generally can be relied on to uphold it.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. will participate in a UN Treaty(4) that will regulate conventional arms sales in every nation. Many fear it will be the beginning of a back-door international move to eliminate American 2nd Amendment rights.

The back door is known as The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “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.”

Over the years, the Supremacy Clause has been corrupted on behalf of internationalists who seek the elimination of American sovereignty. After winning freedom from Britain in the Revolutionary War, the Framers of the Constitution would never have favored turning that freedom over to foreign entities by treaty or anything else. Yet, in 1922, the Supreme Court applied the Supremacy Clause (in Missouri vs. Holland) and declared that a treaty with Canada regarding migratory birds was superior to the laws of the states dealing with the same topic. From that date forward, the federal government has assumed that the issue is resolved and that the 10th Amendment no longer provides sovereignty to the states.

<snip>

.

 

[Missourian]

Just posted this in another thread, but as it applies here as well, I'll repost it for your consideration.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?​

 

[Oldguy]

Just posted this in another thread, but as it applies here as well, I'll repost it for your consideration.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?​

People in those states who openly smoke marijuana are still subject to arrest on federal charges, by federal officers, and the feds case against those states is just now beginning.

Stay tuned for more on Nullification.2.

 

[Missourian]

Just posted this in another thread, but as it applies here as well, I'll repost it for your consideration.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?​

People in those states who openly smoke marijuana are still subject to arrest on federal charges, by federal officers, and the feds case against those states is just now beginning.

Stay tuned for more on Nullification.2.

So why did they bother to pass those laws, knowing that the Supremacy Clause overrode them?

If the argument here is it is foolish to do this because of the supremacy clause, wasn't it as equally foolish there to do the same?

Apparantly not, because they are openly selling a banned commodity with little or no response by federal agents.

 

[Oldguy]

Just posted this in another thread, but as it applies here as well, I'll repost it for your consideration.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?​

People in those states who openly smoke marijuana are still subject to arrest on federal charges, by federal officers, and the feds case against those states is just now beginning.

Stay tuned for more on Nullification.2.

So why did they bother to pass those laws, knowing that the Supremacy Clause overrode them?

If the argument here is it is foolish to do this because of the supremacy clause, wasn't it as equally foolish there to do the same?

Apparantly not, because they are openly selling a banned commodity with little or no response by federal agents.

The friction between states rights and federal powers has been on-going since the Constitution was first printed. Weed is just one of the latest flash points.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The hilarious thing about this to me is that Bush was the one who opened the door on this. I tried to warn you all that Executive Orders were trouble, but since he was an R and he was tweaking D's it was all good. Then Bush took California to court in a very questionable Supremacy clause case arguing the Fed EPA standards overruled California's tighter restrictions. Once again you all clapped for him because he was schooling a liberal state.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. Obama has plenty of precedents from the Bush years to run ragged over state's rights and the legislative process. Well done GOP, well done Conservatives *slow clap*

 

[thereisnospoon]

.
Unconstitutional Texas Bill Would Make Enforcing Federal Gun Laws A Felony | NationofChange
Ian Millhiser
16 January 2013

Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), with the apparent support of at least one of Texas’ most powerful politicians, will introduce unconstitutional legislation subjecting federal law enforcement officers to arrest and prosecution if they enforce new gun safety laws in the Lone Star State:

<snip>


Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Interesting -- Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), wants to protect his view of the Constitution of the United States by introducing legislation to "undermine" the Constitution of the United States. Republicans aren't the protectors of the constitution they pretend to be.
.

Well with the President's 23 fold usurpation of the US Constiitution's separation of powers, I would imagine EVERYTHING is now open to the loosest of interpretations

 

[Oldguy]

.
Unconstitutional Texas Bill Would Make Enforcing Federal Gun Laws A Felony | NationofChange
Ian Millhiser
16 January 2013

Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), with the apparent support of at least one of Texas’ most powerful politicians, will introduce unconstitutional legislation subjecting federal law enforcement officers to arrest and prosecution if they enforce new gun safety laws in the Lone Star State:

<snip>


Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Interesting -- Texas State Rep. Steve Toth (R-TX), wants to protect his view of the Constitution of the United States by introducing legislation to "undermine" the Constitution of the United States. Republicans aren't the protectors of the constitution they pretend to be.
.

Well with the President's 23 fold usurpation of the US Constiitution's separation of powers, I would imagine EVERYTHING is now open to the loosest of interpretations

23 fold usurpation? What on earth are you talking about?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'd like to watch the first time a local yocal tries to arrest a Fed.

It's happened.
Federal authority is not omnipotent.
If Obama had kept his emotions in check, we'd not be having this discussion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. It is the key amendment reinforcing the idea of federalism. In other words, that unless the Constitution specifically gave a power to the federal government or denied it to the states, then it was reserved for the states

Congratulations, you just proved once again that you're completely ignorant.

It is you who are showing ignorance. Much to the chagrin of liberals, the US Constitution is a LIMITING document.
Essentially this means that if the Constitution does not state the federal government has the right to do something, it does not have the right to do it.
The Tenth Amendment clearly states "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."
There is no ambiguity there.
Of course those of you on the Left believe in this idiotic notion of a "living document"...
This is the excuse your side uses to bend twist or even crumple the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just posted this in another thread, but as it applies here as well, I'll repost it for your consideration.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?​

People in those states who openly smoke marijuana are still subject to arrest on federal charges, by federal officers, and the feds case against those states is just now beginning.

Stay tuned for more on Nullification.2.

So why did they bother to pass those laws, knowing that the Supremacy Clause overrode them?

If the argument here is it is foolish to do this because of the supremacy clause, wasn't it as equally foolish there to do the same?

Apparantly not, because they are openly selling a banned commodity with little or no response by federal agents.

Oldguy is correct. The one has nothing to do with the other. Whether federal laws are enforced is a matter for the federal not state officers.

 

[The Professor]

The states that have legalized pot when it is illegal under federal law are those Constitutional?

Depends on whether or not the Fed legally has the right to effect IN STATE commerce. As long as the pot is home grown the Fed has no authority. If any of the pot is out of State that is Interstate Commerce and the Feds have the authority.

However until someone tests it at the Supreme Court. The fed claims they control all drugs everywhere no matter of Commerce.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government does have the right to regulate pot which is produced and consumed locally.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate purely local activity if such activity has an affect on interstate commerce. In Gonzales v. Raich the SCOTUS decided that Congress could regulate marijuana grown by a party solely for her own private medicinal use (defendant lived in California where such use was legal). The SCOTUS ruled that Congress had regulatory authority because defendant grew her own marijuana instead of buying it on on the market, and this affected the amount of interstate traffic. The fact that such interstate traffic was illegal did not sway the SCOTUS. Here is the the rational used by the Court:

“The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.28 Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses …” and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20—21, supra.

"In Wickard, we had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.”

As silly as it sounds, the SCOTUS has proclaimed the Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to criminalize the growing of marijuana. Many people think they understand the Commerce Clause, but they fail to realize that the Constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means, and the Court has given Congress almost unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. The entire SCOTUS decision in the above case can be read at the following link.

GONZALES V. RAICH


I personally think the SCOTUS abandoned every know principle of law, logic and common sense in arriving at their decision, but there is no appeal from their insanity.

Funny, that the Commerce Clause was originally intended to regulate only the flow of interstate commerce, and not the things which flowed. The Law was to prevent one state from placing economic barriers to things produced in other states. Then the Commerce Clause was used to regulate those items which were part of interstate commerce. Then it was used to regulate those things which affected interstate commerce even though they were not part of that commerce. Finally, it was decided that things which were produced and consumed locally could be regulated because they impacted negatively on interstate commerce. In other words, anything that is not in interstate commerce can be regulated simply because it is not in interstate commerce.... according the Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

And people wonder why I drink.

 

[Missourian]

People in those states who openly smoke marijuana are still subject to arrest on federal charges, by federal officers, and the feds case against those states is just now beginning.

Stay tuned for more on Nullification.2.

So why did they bother to pass those laws, knowing that the Supremacy Clause overrode them?

If the argument here is it is foolish to do this because of the supremacy clause, wasn't it as equally foolish there to do the same?

Apparantly not, because they are openly selling a banned commodity with little or no response by federal agents.

Oldguy is correct. The one has nothing to do with the other. Whether federal laws are enforced is a matter for the federal not state officers.

So the best thing to do is pass it and see what happens, just like California did.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Much to the chagrin of liberals, the US Constitution is a LIMITING document.

Which has little to nothing to do with the 10th amendment or the supremacy clause.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states "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."
There is no ambiguity there.

You're right, there's no ambiguity there. It says that powers are RESERVED to the states. It did not say that powers are GRANTED to the states. The states cannot reserve that which they never possessed. The states did not originally possess the power to nullify federal law, prior to the ratification of the contitution, because the federal government did not exist yet. The states cannot have the power to nullify federal law now, unless the constitution itself granted them that power. But that's not what the 10th amendment does. It does not create a power of the states. It merely reserves powers to the states that already existed.

Of course those of you on the Left

Man, the stupidity never slows down around here, does it?

believe in this idiotic notion of a "living document"...

I agree, it's an idiotic notion. But that has nothing to do with the 10th amendment. The 10th reserves original powers of the states. It does not create new powers. This is already well settled through ample case law.

This is the excuse your side uses to bend twist or even crumple the Constitution.

Actually, you're the one trying to bend and twist the constitution. The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. That's very plain and simple. You're trying to twist the 10th amendment around so as to erase the supremacy clause. It ain't going to happen. You can sit here and cry about it if you like. But the courts have a long standing treatment for this absurd question you're trying to argue. This was closed case before you were even born.