Great to see a state finally assert it's power over the federal government

[ogibillm]

Supremacy only holds true for enumerated powers. Unless you have an activist court.

so once again, courts decide constitutionality, a law is only constitutional if the power is granted to the federal government by the constitution...

but okay. you live in your own little delusional world where somehow states are able to invalidate federal law all on their own.

because i'm giving up. i've tried to make this horse drink and it just aint possible.

 

[Pogo]

Knowing something about the constitution instead of making up what you wish it said would probably be helpful for you

I am completely correct Jillian. Better luck on some other topic.

Uhh... aren't you the same wag who posted that the "interstate highway speed limit is 75"?
Or is there a new definition of the word correct?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

no one denies that the federal government is limited in power by the constitution.

however, what some people fail to understand is that when the federal government passes a law it is presumed constitutional until the courts decide otherwise. the states, if they pass laws that contradicts the federal law, will not be able to enforce their own because

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. EVERY. *******. TIME.

so when a state passes a law that says a federal law is unconstitutional it doesn't mean dick because the states aren't the ones that decide that and frankly their opinion is not relevant.

it's called the supremacy clause. look it up.

Every single court that rules whether a law is constitutional or ot is an activist court, because that is NOT within their constitutional powers.

Only hacks believe that this is true only when their "side" loses.

 

[P@triot]

This is absolutely outstanding. Of course, it took the liberals becoming so radical, the entire party had to be hijacked by Socialists/Marxists/Communists, but the American people are finally starting to wake up, adhere to the U.S. Constitution, and put the federal government in it's place...

Here’s How Wyoming Lawmakers Are Trying to Beat Obama Admin. to the Punch on Possible Gun Ban | TheBlaze.com

Nice deflective sophistry there: paint the adversary with your own faults. We all know the RP has been hijacked and driven off that ditch on the right by social conservative partisan hacks who have been desperate ever since the disgrace of Watergate. So even though the entire country has moved right, let's pretend the opposite happened and imagine "socialists/marxists/communists" hijacked the opposite party. Takes the spotlight off the elephant in the room.

By the way it's not it's; it's its.

Like most wing-nuts, you're a little touchy about the truth, uh? I have no idea which direction the "entire country" has moved, but I can tell you that the left has become so radical, people who suggest we actually adhere to the U.S. Constitution (you know, since it is the law of the land and all), are attacked as "tea naggers, wing-nuts, etc.

Furthermore, if you suggest the U.S. cut taxes (gasp!) - the insults are even worse. The funny thing is, there is audio/video of the liberal golden boy - John F. Kennedy - stating that cutting taxes is the only way to fix an economy in recession. However, when a conservative says that today, holy Jesus are they attacked as "wing-nut tea bangers".

As if all of that isn't enough evidence, how about the fact that George Bush was the poster child of liberal policy, and yet is despised by today's radical left? He grew government with massive beauracracies like the Department of Homeland Security (a corner stone of the liberal philosophy), he spent tax payer dollars recklessly (another corner stone of the liberal philosophy), and when that money ran out, he kept spending anyway in the form of deficit spending (the final corner stone of the liberal philosophy).

And here's a bonus nugget for you: the Communist Party U.S.A. is on record as stating "we have a friend in the White House" when referring to Barack Obama.

Today's Republican's are just JFK-era big government, big spending liberals and today's Dumbocrat Party has been completely hijacked by Socialists/Marxists/Communists. That's just an inconvenient fact that you just happen to feel uncomfortable with...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Its simple. The federal govenment is limited to enumerated powers (within which they are supreme). ALL other powers are specifically given to individuals and states. The individual retains almost exclusive rights in all cases, unless it enfringes upon another person.

I gave you examples that disproved your assertions. You lose. We are called united states for a reason.

Knowing something about the constitution instead of making up what you wish it said would probably be helpful for you

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

Nonsense.

The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both expressed and implied. The ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

As Chief Justice Marshall noted, writing for a unanimous Court:

[T]here is no phrase in the [Constitution] which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described.

[T]he Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the Constitution and laws of the respective States, and cannot be controlled by them.

This effect need not be stated in terms. It is so involved in the declaration of supremacy, so necessarily implied in it, that the expression of it could not make it more certain. We must, therefore, keep it in view while construing the Constitution.

Those powers are not given by the people of a single State. They are given by the people of the United States, to a Government whose laws, made in pursuance of the Constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single State cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Consequently, states do not have the authority to ignore or nullify Federal statutes, the people of a single state do not hold sovereignty over all the people of the United States, as acts of Congress represent the will of each American.

 

[P@triot]

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

no one denies that the federal government is limited in power by the constitution.

however, what some people fail to understand is that when the federal government passes a law it is presumed constitutional until the courts decide otherwise. the states, if they pass laws that contradicts the federal law, will not be able to enforce their own because

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. EVERY. *******. TIME.

so when a state passes a law that says a federal law is unconstitutional it doesn't mean dick because the states aren't the ones that decide that and frankly their opinion is not relevant.

it's called the supremacy clause. look it up.

You've already acknowledge that Sheriff Richard Mack trumped federal law when he beat the Brady Law in the Supreme Court....

You just keep contradicting yourself

 

[Contumacious]

Knowing something about the constitution instead of making up what you wish it said would probably be helpful for you

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

Nonsense.

The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both expressed and implied. The ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

As Chief Justice Marshall noted, writing for a unanimous Court:

[T]here is no phrase in the [Constitution] which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described.

[T]he Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the Constitution and laws of the respective States, and cannot be controlled by them.

This effect need not be stated in terms. It is so involved in the declaration of supremacy, so necessarily implied in it, that the expression of it could not make it more certain. We must, therefore, keep it in view while construing the Constitution.

Those powers are not given by the people of a single State. They are given by the people of the United States, to a Government whose laws, made in pursuance of the Constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single State cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Consequently, states do not have the authority to ignore or nullify Federal statutes, the people of a single state do not hold sovereignty over all the people of the United States, as acts of Congress represent the will of each American.

Bullshit.

The citizens have the right to oppose federal tyranny by any means necessary.

.

 

[ogibillm]

Jillian - he is 100% dead on with this post and you know it (hence your lack of examples on where he was so wrong). The federal government has 18 enumerated powers and anything outside of that the state has full power. It really is that simple...

no one denies that the federal government is limited in power by the constitution.

however, what some people fail to understand is that when the federal government passes a law it is presumed constitutional until the courts decide otherwise. the states, if they pass laws that contradicts the federal law, will not be able to enforce their own because

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. EVERY. *******. TIME.

so when a state passes a law that says a federal law is unconstitutional it doesn't mean dick because the states aren't the ones that decide that and frankly their opinion is not relevant.

it's called the supremacy clause. look it up.

You've already acknowledge that Sheriff Richard Mack trumped federal law when he beat the Brady Law in the Supreme Court....

You just keep contradicting yourself

he did no such thing. he filed suit, portions of the law were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

but the constitution is what trumped the federal law and made portion of it invalid, not state law.

see

constitution>federal law>state law

get it?

 

[P@triot]

Nonsense.

The Constitution clearly affords Congress powers both expressed and implied. The ‘but that’s not in the Constitution’ is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Here, learn something for once (I hate seeing ignorant people such as yourself):

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

"For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)"

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

Following the Convention, the Framers spent months assuring the people that the new government would not be too powerful, would respect its limits, and would govern over only those matters where the Constitution clearly gave it authority

Don't let the facts hit you in the ass on the way out you misinformed ideologue...

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

 

[P@triot]

no one denies that the federal government is limited in power by the constitution.

however, what some people fail to understand is that when the federal government passes a law it is presumed constitutional until the courts decide otherwise. the states, if they pass laws that contradicts the federal law, will not be able to enforce their own because

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. EVERY. *******. TIME.

so when a state passes a law that says a federal law is unconstitutional it doesn't mean dick because the states aren't the ones that decide that and frankly their opinion is not relevant.

it's called the supremacy clause. look it up.

You've already acknowledge that Sheriff Richard Mack trumped federal law when he beat the Brady Law in the Supreme Court....

You just keep contradicting yourself

he did no such thing. he filed suit, portions of the law were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

but the constitution is what trumped the federal law and made portion of it invalid, not state law.

see

constitution>federal law>state law

get it?

And as I've already stated, it was recognized to be "unconstitutional" because it attempted to supersede state power and the federal government had no authority to do so.

Damn are you one slow learner

No matter how you try to spin in, I'm exposing your b.s. for exactly what it is... You've never read the Constitution and clearly do not understand it

 

[Contumacious]

no one denies that the federal government is limited in power by the constitution.

however, what some people fail to understand is that when the federal government passes a law it is presumed constitutional until the courts decide otherwise. the states, if they pass laws that contradicts the federal law, will not be able to enforce their own because

FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW. EVERY. *******. TIME.

so when a state passes a law that says a federal law is unconstitutional it doesn't mean dick because the states aren't the ones that decide that and frankly their opinion is not relevant.

it's called the supremacy clause. look it up.

You've already acknowledge that Sheriff Richard Mack trumped federal law when he beat the Brady Law in the Supreme Court....

You just keep contradicting yourself

he did no such thing. he filed suit, portions of the law were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

but the constitution is what trumped the federal law and made portion of it invalid, not state law.

t?

BULLSHIT.


The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.


MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


Now show me where the bastards were given SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED AUTHORITY TO **** WITH OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[ogibillm]

You've already acknowledge that Sheriff Richard Mack trumped federal law when he beat the Brady Law in the Supreme Court....

You just keep contradicting yourself

he did no such thing. he filed suit, portions of the law were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

but the constitution is what trumped the federal law and made portion of it invalid, not state law.

see

constitution>federal law>state law

get it?

And as I've already stated, it was recognized to be "unconstitutional" because it attempted to supersede state power and the federal government had no authority to do so.

Damn are you one slow learner

No matter how you try to spin in, I'm exposing your b.s. for exactly what it is... You've never read the Constitution and clearly do not understand it

do you believe in nullification?

 

[P@triot]

Consequently, states do not have the authority to ignore or nullify Federal statutes, the people of a single state do not hold sovereignty over all the people of the United States, as acts of Congress represent the will of each American.

Well now you're just babbling incoherently. Nobody said or even implied that "one state holds power over all the people of the United States".

States are sovereign, the U.S. Constitution bears that out, and no absurd anti-constitutional ideology on your behalf changes that fact.

 

[thereisnospoon]

in what world is a state able to outlaw enforcement of a federal law?

did wyoming fail civics class?

When the federal law is unconstitutional...

Interesting problem: are we obligated to obey a law until the Court declares it unconstititional?
Suppose for some reason the law does not come before the Court are we still obligated to obey the law?

A temporary injunction can be issued until the case is adjudicated.
There is also the specter of civil disobedience.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Consequently, states do not have the authority to ignore or nullify Federal statutes, the people of a single state do not hold sovereignty over all the people of the United States, as acts of Congress represent the will of each American.

Well now you're just babbling incoherently. Nobody said or even implied that "one state holds power over all the people of the United States".

States are sovereign, the U.S. Constitution bears that out, and no absurd anti-constitutional ideology on your behalf changes that fact.

LOL no they are not.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Consequently, states do not have the authority to ignore or nullify Federal statutes, the people of a single state do not hold sovereignty over all the people of the United States, as acts of Congress represent the will of each American.

Well now you're just babbling incoherently. Nobody said or even implied that "one state holds power over all the people of the United States".

States are sovereign, the U.S. Constitution bears that out, and no absurd anti-constitutional ideology on your behalf changes that fact.

LOL no they are not.

Yes, they are.
That's why the Supremacy Clause was written into the Constitution.

 

[thereisnospoon]

he did no such thing. he filed suit, portions of the law were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

but the constitution is what trumped the federal law and made portion of it invalid, not state law.

see

constitution>federal law>state law

get it?

And as I've already stated, it was recognized to be "unconstitutional" because it attempted to supersede state power and the federal government had no authority to do so.

Damn are you one slow learner

No matter how you try to spin in, I'm exposing your b.s. for exactly what it is... You've never read the Constitution and clearly do not understand it

do you believe in nullification?

You mean like the tooth fairy?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Well now you're just babbling incoherently. Nobody said or even implied that "one state holds power over all the people of the United States".

States are sovereign, the U.S. Constitution bears that out, and no absurd anti-constitutional ideology on your behalf changes that fact.

LOL no they are not.

Yes, they are.
That's why the Supremacy Clause was written into the Constitution.

If states were sovereign then the federal government would have NO authority over them. Obviously that is not the case.

 

[Contumacious]

Well now you're just babbling incoherently. Nobody said or even implied that "one state holds power over all the people of the United States".

States are sovereign, the U.S. Constitution bears that out, and no absurd anti-constitutional ideology on your behalf changes that fact.

LOL no they are not.

Yes, they are.
That's why the Supremacy Clause was written into the Constitution.

Bullshit

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


Show me where the federal Constitution grants the federal government the authority to **** with our right to defend ourselves


.

 

[P@triot]

do you believe in nullification?

That's an absurd question. It's akin to asking "why do you beat your wife" when I don't beat my wife in the first place, therefore there is no "why" to answer.

Your question is predicated on the fact that one believes the U.S. Constitution is open to interpretation - and it is not. It is written in black & white, set in stone, and the law of the land. It changes only through the amendment process.

Furthermore, unlike you, I don't "believe" anything. What I know to be true is that the federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states and that is all the authority the federal government has.

Following the Convention, the Framers spent months assuring the people that the new government would not be too powerful, would respect its limits, and would govern over only those matters where the Constitution clearly gave it authority. Three of the Founders wrote 500 pages of promises known as the Federalist Papers, promises that the federal government would have only so much power and no more; promises that the states and the people would remain largely sovereign; 500 pages of promises, virtually each one of which was a rebuttal to the charges that the federal government would not respect its bounds, and that, even if it did respect them, its proposed powers were too broad.

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation