Interstate activism... wrong? Is this about the 10th Amendment?

[CoRoMo]

I chose to create this thread rather than continue anything in the thread I started here because although this is in fact an activism topic, I have some constitutional questions to pose now.

In the linked thread, I illustrated how a relative of mine believes that when each of us gets involved in the policy making in each others' states, we are supposedly violating that state's right to self governance. Here is my family member's position...

Let's get back to the very beginning of this debate if we will because in that time since you have claimed to be an expert on firearms regulations and the laws being passed but somehow I forget that you went to law school.

You asked us to write your elected representatives to weigh in on legislation that only affects us when we enter your state. For 1 second let's forget what that legislation pertains to.

You then supported your action by implying that it was correct, just and ethical for us to do so.

In effect we'd be trying to sway legislation on a state in which we do not reside like Mark Kelly did when he testified before your state assembly.

Were you pleased with his testimony?

If our opinions are valid on the legislation before your state assembly, then what of the opinions of the anti-gunners?

What of the opinions of the President Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein? Do they not matter like ours do?

The fact is there are 5 million Coloradoans and 310 million NON-Coloradoans. If everyone did what you wanted us to do, the sound of the voices of Coloradoans would be drowned out by populism.

THAT is why I brought up state sovereignty. It is not up to me what goes on in your state.

Yes we all have the freedom of speech to voice our concerns with anyone at anytime.

BUT when it comes to the 10th amendment, our political opinions stop at the state line.

The error of your thinking is that this is a gun issue. The gun issue only pertains to the law being passed. What I was arguing against has nothing to do with the gun issue. As you well know, MagPul will be pulling out of Colorado. If you do not like the laws or the political climate of the state in which you reside, it is YOUR responsibility to change them not mine, not your parent's. You either change the circumstances or move to a different state.

As it appears from what I've read and seen, Coloradoans are in a majority against the measures that were just passed. If the Colorado legislature and governor are not representing their constituents properly, recall them. Start a petition and remove them from office. When they are removed, force your representatives to repeal the laws.

You live in a state that is a constitutional republic, not a democracy and definitely not a state that practices populism.
If you are to live by a rule of law then do so. What you are seeking to do is to rule by populism which only ends in the loss of freedom.

No, I did not go to law school and neither did he. I'm interested to hear from those of you who DID go to law school, and anyone else who feels versed on the 10th Amendment to speak toward the points he's making. It's probably a good idea to skim through the thread that I linked to in the first sentence there. Otherwise there might not be enough context to fully understand what's being talked about here.

Thanks.

 

[AlexanderA]

First Amendment freedom of speech applies to all people, not just citizens or residents of a particular state. Certainly, state lines are not relevant here.

 

[CoRoMo]

I know.

The 10th Amendment is a limiter on the government, period and end of sentence, not a limiter on the people. To somehow believe that the 10th is a commission to refrain political opinion at the state line... gives me a headache.

But I'm no scholar I suppose.

 

[mdauben]

Another problem with his stance, of course, is that our opposition does not believe in it. Anti-gun forces are freely seeking to influence the legislative process in states where they are not resident. If we refuse to "cross boarders" in our support of gun rights, we are ceding this area of influence to our enemies.

 

[BK]

He's not making any sense. He wants to set aside the fact that the Colorado legislation was about gun control for the sake of making a few points, but then he goes on to refer to that very topic from there on out. He's either confused or he's just trying to confuse. I'm no scholar either but I'll throw in the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article 4 and probably Amendment 14 would apply to a resident of Florida having the authority, the interest, and duty to email the state house in California to protest a bill. The 10th is nowhere applicable here.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....when each of us gets involved in the policy making in each others' states, we are supposedly violating that state's right to self governance....

The short answer is that is simply preposterous.

1. States don't have rights. States certainly have no right to conduct activities without criticism or comment from any person.
   
   
2. States do have sovereignty and powers. Lawful First Amendment protected conduct (in contrast to unprotected conduct like trespass, physical interference, destruction of property) can not as a matter of fact affect a State's sovereignty nor prevent its exercise of its lawful powers.
   
   
3. The 10th Amendment is of course irrelevant since the Constitution does not regulate private conduct. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991) (emphasis added):

   ....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....

 

[hugh damright]

It makes sense to me ... as an analogy, if Canada was considering a gun law, I would not contact the Canadian officials to express my opinion, because I am not a citizen of Canada ... likewise, if Colorado was considering a gun law, I would not weigh in, because I am not a citizen of Colorado ... in both cases, it is a matter of respecting the sovereignty of others.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if Canada was considering a gun law, I would not contact the Canadian officials to express my opinion, because I am not a citizen of Canada ... likewise, if Colorado was considering a gun law, I would not weigh in, because I am not a citizen of Colorado ... in both cases, it is a matter of respecting the sovereignty of others.

Abstaining voluntarily is one thing. But suggesting that you're obliged to do so is ludicrous -- as would be imagining that anyone in the Canadian government could possibly care what you think.

 

[Texan Scott]

1) HOGWASH. Ask him to apply that logic to the civil rights movement of the sixties. Are we not allowed to stand up for the U.S. Constitutional rights of our fellow Americans just because they live in a different U.S. state?

2) Tell him to reread the 10th amendment, please.

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.

(Emphasis added)

Are we not people of the United States within the clear meaning of the 10th?

3) The 10A, as previously noted, is a limit on the authority of government ... not the freedoms of citizens.
A Colorado congressman can't tell me BOO.... I'll tell him anything I please.

 

[zorro45]

My Observations

I live on the border of two relatively anti-gun states. My business where I get the privilege of paying double the residential property tax rate is in one state and I reside in another. I have taxation without representation. The only way I have to influence the political process where my business is would be to write, give $, etc. to the elected reps in that state. I also feel I cannot raise a ruckus over the gun laws because I do not want to become a target at permit renewal time. Yes, it does irritate me when B. spends millions of $ out of state. It also irritates me when a carpetbagger like Hilliary C. moves to an easy district to win a Senate race (old news, possibly nor gun related, but still irritating). If I cared enough and had any extra $ I would have supported her opponent. I would think that OK.

 

[hugh damright]

when it comes to the 10th amendment, our political opinions stop at the state line

If this is an assertion that a person who tries to influence another State's legislation is violating the Tenth Amendment, as if he could be charged and convicted of such a thing, then I disagree ... but if it an assertion that such an act would be antithetical to Tenth Amendment federalism, that it disrespects the reserved rights of the States, I think that's correct.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if it an assertion that such an act would be antithetical to Tenth Amendment federalism, that it disrespects the reserved rights of the States, I think that's correct...

You're welcome to your opinion. However, I consider your opinion worthless and reject it out of hand.

As a private individual, my conduct is not subject to or regulated by the Tenth Amendment.

 

[joeschmoe]

The Bill of Rights is actually a list of restrictions upon the Federal Government. It does not restrict the people.

 

[Texan Scott]

^+1... and publicly holding that the BoR limits the rights of citizens is ridiculous. That's why the 9TH AMENDMENT was written.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[JFtheGR8]

Tell that one to New York's Bloomberg. Maybe he'll stop spending his money in Illinois if he thought it was unconstitutional. Oh wait, gun control IS unconstitutional and he's all for it so never mind. The constitution doesn't mean squat to the nut bags unless it furthers their agenda.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android