Feds Override Montana State Law

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

He certainly didn't act in any limited way as President, but I'd give the vote to Madison as the best example of playing both sides.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 Federal Government only has Supremacy on their side when acting within the scope of the powers granted to them by the Constitution. You may want to reread the Bill of rights it specifically states that any power NOT delegated to the federal Government remains with the States or people. Intrastate commerce is a STATE matter the Federal Government has no authority granted it by the Constitution to subvert State law in this matter.

 

[007]

No matter what Washington tries to pull on Montana, I hope Montana tells them to go fuck themselves, and thus starts a tidal wave of other states telling Washington the same thing. Washington is out of control, and needs to be reined in... somehow.

 

[Modbert]

No matter what Washington tries to pull on Montana, I hope Montana tells them to go fuck themselves, and thus starts a tidal wave of other states telling Washington the same thing. Washington is out of control, and needs to be reined in... somehow.

Calling for a Revolution by any means necessary Pale?

 

[007]

No matter what Washington tries to pull on Montana, I hope Montana tells them to go fuck themselves, and thus starts a tidal wave of other states telling Washington the same thing. Washington is out of control, and needs to be reined in... somehow.

Calling for a Revolution by any means necessary Pale?

If that's what it takes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No matter what Washington tries to pull on Montana, I hope Montana tells them to go fuck themselves, and thus starts a tidal wave of other states telling Washington the same thing. Washington is out of control, and needs to be reined in... somehow.

Calling for a Revolution by any means necessary Pale?

The states defending their independence from Washington doesn't constitute a revolution, simply reaffirmation of their rights.

 

[Arawyn]

I hope this does go to the Supreme Court. Talk about precedent setting... one way or the other.

To many of the Supremes are all about violating peoples rights. This is the same Court that ruled any Government at any level could take your property as Imminent Domain simply to give to someone that might bring in higher tax revenue.

wasn't that before Roberts and Alito?

Yeah but the same ones that voted FOR that proposition in Kelo v. City of New London are still there: Stevens, Ginsberg, Byers, Souter and then Kennedy *concurring* w/only O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

 

[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 Federal Government only has Supremacy on their side when acting within the scope of the powers granted to them by the Constitution. You may want to reread the Bill of rights it specifically states that any power NOT delegated to the federal Government remains with the States or people. Intrastate commerce is a STATE matter the Federal Government has no authority granted it by the Constitution to subvert State law in this matter.

Actually the High Court has a ton of decisions on this exact matter.

Here is a good one.

Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States

"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."

I found a great article in the Yale Law Journal dealing wth this. I can give you citation or you can look it up on JSTOR. I don't think I can lnk it though.

1.Regulation of Intrastate Commerce under the Commerce Clause
Parker McCollester
The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 8 (Jun., 1922), pp. 870-879
Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.
Stable URL: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

In conclusion, I find it quite funny that you are referring me to the Bll of Rights when I can recite all ten of them from memory. I promise you that forgotten more about Con Law than you will ever know. Read these cases and tell me where the Supreme Court is wrong.

Disclaimer: Personally I do not agree wth the Government's position on this matter, however, current case law supports the Federal Government on this this. Barring a new precedent, the Government's actons here will stand.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I find it amazing how everybody scatters when case law is presented.

 

[Arawyn]

I find it amazing how everybody scatters when case law is presented.

LOL, I just agreed w/it and didn't have anything to add.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find it amazing how everybody scatters when case law is presented.

I think it's more that it's no surprise to anybody that case law is often times not based on the Constitution at all.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I find it amazing how everybody scatters when case law is presented.

I think it's more that it's no surprise to anybody that case law is often times not based on the Constitution at all.

You are correct. Case law is the Interpretation of the Constitution through the courts, per the Constitution.

You were through case law that the federal government does in fact have the Constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce and that the Supremacy clause applies to any law that is in contradiction to federal law. You were shown that you are wrong and you quit. I get it. I win. Game Over.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find it amazing how everybody scatters when case law is presented.

I think it's more that it's no surprise to anybody that case law is often times not based on the Constitution at all.

You are correct. Case law is the Interpretation of the Constitution through the courts, per the Constitution.

You were through case law that the federal government does in fact have the Constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce and that the Supremacy clause applies to any law that is in contradiction to federal law. You were shown that you are wrong and you quit. I get it. I win. Game Over.

That's well and good, but find for me in the actual Constitution where it says that the federal government may regulate intrastate commerce.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I think it's more that it's no surprise to anybody that case law is often times not based on the Constitution at all.

You are correct. Case law is the Interpretation of the Constitution through the courts, per the Constitution.

You were through case law that the federal government does in fact have the Constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce and that the Supremacy clause applies to any law that is in contradiction to federal law. You were shown that you are wrong and you quit. I get it. I win. Game Over.

That's well and good, but find for me in the actual Constitution where it says that the federal government may regulate intrastate commerce.

I gave you cases that tell you, if you are too lazy to read the provided info supporting my case then so be it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are correct. Case law is the Interpretation of the Constitution through the courts, per the Constitution.

You were through case law that the federal government does in fact have the Constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce and that the Supremacy clause applies to any law that is in contradiction to federal law. You were shown that you are wrong and you quit. I get it. I win. Game Over.

That's well and good, but find for me in the actual Constitution where it says that the federal government may regulate intrastate commerce.

I gave you cases that tell you, if you are too lazy to read the provided info supporting my case then so be it.

Those cases aren't the Constitution.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

That's well and good, but find for me in the actual Constitution where it says that the federal government may regulate intrastate commerce.

I gave you cases that tell you, if you are too lazy to read the provided info supporting my case then so be it.

Those cases aren't the Constitution.

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

 

[Arawyn]

That's well and good, but find for me in the actual Constitution where it says that the federal government may regulate intrastate commerce.

I gave you cases that tell you, if you are too lazy to read the provided info supporting my case then so be it.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I gave you cases that tell you, if you are too lazy to read the provided info supporting my case then so be it.

Those cases aren't the Constitution.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I gave you cases that tell you, if you are too lazy to read the provided info supporting my case then so be it.

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.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Those cases aren't the Constitution.

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.