Declare a law invalid?

[Crimp]

This is probably wishful thinking, but:

At the risk of probably losing all kinds of federal money, is it possible for a State to declare a federal law invalid within their boundries because it's unconstitutional? If so, has it ever been done?

 

[deadin]

Last time I looked the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had the final say if a law was unconstitutional.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I believe that Kentucky did this once, though I don't remember the specifics at this time.

 

[oceansands]

What do you think the Civil War was about?

 

[Frog48]

Sounds like somebody missed the first day of Intro Government back in high school...

 

[jeep-2]

even when a State don't do what the Feds want them to do, it's easy to bring the States around, like seat belt laws, raise the drinking age, speed limits.ect. the Feds just cut the funding for certian programs and the States come around.. like do it our way or your state will pay.

 

[HankB]

It depends . . . sometimes, things are done quietly, as in Austin, TX, which has in effect a "sanctuary" policy in which local police will not arrest illegal aliens for being illegals, or even bring them to the Fed's attention.

California and the Feds are fighting over marijuana laws, but like the case above, that's basically a case of "WE'RE not going to enforce YOUR laws" rather than prevention of enforcement.

I believe that, if they were so inclined, a lot of Federal laws could be challenged on 10th Amendment grounds, if nothing else . . . but the states don't want to open that can of worms, since there are no doubt a lot of Federal laws that they happen to like which might be thrown out in the aftermath of a successful 10th Amendment challenge.

 

[Crimp]

What do you think the Civil War was about? --oceansands

Well, on topic, a few of the causes might be John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act that nearly drove VA and KY to secede. From that, they developed the idea that States could nullify federal law. Before the war, I believe SC attempted to nullify a national tariff law. Many wanted to secede because of that. It went down hill from there until Lincoln finally decided he would hold the Union together at any cost and the feds agressively attacked the secession States.

--Grant48: Sounds like somebody missed the first day of Intro Government back in high school...

Actually not, Grant. But, it's been 51 years since then. It's so hard to remember all this stuff...

I'd simply like some modern specifics if there are any.

 

[LAK Supply]

The states do have the option to buck the feds. Although the SCOTUS is the ultimate authority, the states can most definitely force the hand of the feds. This is how many cases make it to SCOTUS.

Seeing as how most of our current government is not legal under the Constitution, action on the part of the states may be the best thing we could get.

 

[thexrayboy]

I can think of a lot of laws that should be declared invalid. Unfortunately
the Feds usually have the means to pressure states back into line using the
threat of withholding our money from ourselves. They also I am sure used the thinly veiled threat of military force. When certain political venues refused to integrate schools in the face of federal law the feds didn't hesitate to send in armed troops to impose their will. They would have no trouble doing so again, especially now that posse comitatus has been sent to the scrap heap of history.

Hell, the feds don't even have to use military troops if they choose not to. They have over 100,000 members of their own military force serving under the guise of SWAT, SORT, RESCUE etc acronyms that they can call up, deploy and use. All of these troops are heavily armed and armored. Many would match up well with true military units. And all of them available at the beck and call of some beaurocrat.

Kind of reminds me of the schutzstaffel.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Didn't Montana just pass an act declaring some Federal law invalid in Montana?

I'm not stating that as a fact, I'm asking for confirmation ...

 

[LawBot5000]

Maryland did this about 200 years ago, with less than stellar success.

Typically when the state makes a law that conflicts with federal law, (and declaring the federal law to be null and void is definitely a conflict, regardless of the reason) the Supreme Court will reach one of three conclusions:
-the federal law violates some right in the constitution
-the federal law was not a proper exercise of congressional power as outlined in the constitution (this rarely happens thanks to the New Deal commerce clause cases)
-the federal law is valid and the state law is struct down due to the Supremacy Clause

Typically the result will be the last one. Notable rececnt exceptions to this rule you might want to aim for have been:
US v Printz- federal government (through brady act) commanded state police to conduct background checks on firearms purchasers before NICS was in place. Violated 10th amendment because it commandeered state government apparatus.
US v Lopez- federal government (through gun free school zones act) banned firearm possesion within 1000 ft of school zones. No connection to interstate commerce here so it is struck down.
US v Morrison- federal government gave women a civil remedy for sexual assault (stupid VOW act). Court says that rape isnt interstate commerce so no dice congress. Violent crime is typically the domain of the state courts.
US v Raich- marijuana cultivation and consumption is part of a commercial interstate market in marijuana. The mere fact that it is an illegal market doesnt diminish the ability of congress to regulate it. Lame decision IMO because the marijuana in this case wasnt actually moving interstate or involved in commerce, but stare decisis and Shreveport say otherwise.

 

[LAK Supply]

In your opinion, what could happen if a majorty of the states did this at once?

 

[LawBot5000]

They would be holding a constitutional convention?

If a good portion of the country officially raised the middle finger to a certain law, congress would probably just repeal it. The tyrants that be have no problem whatsoever with majoritarianism. The problem is getting them to acknowledge restraints when the rights of a minority group are at stake.

As it stands now, gun voters are a substantial minority. We are powerful enough that both parties know not to attack us openly. That is certainly better than the early 90s, but it is a far cry from an overwhelming majoritarian tidal wave that will get repeals rolling.

 

[Crimp]

Aguila Blanca: Didn't Montana just pass an act declaring some Federal law invalid in Montana?

You are probably thinking of the Real ID bills:

http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=6277

On Thursday, Feb. 1, the Montana House of Representatives unanimously approved two bills that signal the state’s refusal to go along with the 2005 Real ID Act. A bill introduced by Rep. Brady Wiseman, D-Bozeman, directs state government not to implement Real ID, while another by Rep. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, takes the opposition one step further by “nullifying” the law in Montana. Gov. Brian Schweitzer and the Montana attorney general’s office both have pledged their support, though neither bill has yet been considered by Montana’s Senate.

 

[deadin]

Montana also had/has(?) a bill in the legislature challanging the "Commerce Clause" in that if a Full Auto is made in Montana, sold in Montana and owned in Montana by a citizen of Montana, never to cross the State line, the Feds have no right to regulate it. I don't know what the current status of this bill is, but it wouldn't suprise me to see it shot down by the Federal courts.

 

[waynedm]

What about not being able to say 'Nigg*r; in New York now? Seems like that's unconstitutional to me. Not only can you not have arms there now, you have also lost your freedom of speech. New York has taken away the 1st and 2nd amendment, which one's next?

 

[LawBot5000]

Find someone whose livelihood comes from saying the n-word (average black comedian or rapper) and have him sue to overturn the law. Of course, NYC will argue very convincingly that they havent prosecuted anyone for the law and perhaps have no plans to. And it gets tossed for lack of standing.

Eventually they will prosecute someone for the crime and it will get tossed out on 1st amendment grounds. It's an obviously unconstitutional law.

 

[Car Knocker]

The N-word prohibition is a non-binding resolution, not a law or ordinance. It has no force of law and no one can be prosecuted for violating it.

 

[deadin]

It's an obviously unconstitutional law.

But until "tossed" it's still the law.

 

[hugh damright]

What do you think the Civil War was about?

I assume you believe that the South defied federal law, but it was the North that defied federal law, they defied the Constitution itself, by refusing to return escaped slaves. And this treason is what justified the South's secession.

I'm curious what federal law you imagine the South declared invalid, causing the war?

 

[AK103K]

Last time I looked the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had the final say if a law was unconstitutional.

Actually, every one of us has the power, its called Jury Nullification. We can hold the law on trial by refusing to find the defendant "guilty". Regardless what the law says or the Judge instructs, "we the people" are still the power in the court room, even though they will tell you different, and some are bold enough to believe they are by overturning a jury's verdict.

It amazes me how many people have no idea what jury nullification is. Ask ten people and see how many know. Then again, they wont teach it in the schools, or tell you about it in the court room, ( ask the judge to explain it next time your on jury duty ) and most people are to busy worrying about getting out of jury duty than worrying about the future of the country. As long as football and beer are available, all is good.

 

[deadin]

Jury Nullification is currently being discussed ad naseum on another site. Do we really need it here?
Anyway, Jury Nullification will NOT invalidate a law. At best it may send a notice to the courts that there are those that disagree with the law. Usually all it does is hang a jury and cause a retrial. Hang enough juries and maybe SCOTUS will listen and reverse the law in question. The problem is that one usually must lie during voir dier to get on the jury they want to nullify in the first place. I believe the question asked would be something like "This is a case concerning "CCW". If the prosecution proves it's case will you be able to return a verdict of guilty". If you answer "No" because you don't believe that there should be any laws concerning CCW, you will probably be excused. If you answer "Yes" , knowing beforehand you are planning on hanging the jury, you have lied to a court and are breaking both the Constitution (guarantee of an impartial jury) and the jurors oath to base their verdict on the evidence presented during the trial.

 

[another okie]

The Constitution gives the federal government power over some areas of life. In those matters it is supreme, and defying it is useless. Examples are interstate commerce, declaring war, and so on.

In other areas the federal government does not have direct power and gets its way by threats to withhold money. In those cases, the states indeed may stand up to the federal government if they are willing to lose federal funds. An example would be the drinking age.