If enough states get together, can they over rule a federal law?

[GuyWithQuestions]

I'm trying to think back to my high school years on government. If enough states get together and vote on an issue, can they over rule a federal law? For example, if they were to do a national ban on concealed carry, could they get together and over rule it? Almost all states in the nation have passed laws saying that it's legal in their state.

According to http://www.newsweek.com/id/68123 and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914 Barack Obama has the most delegates won to date for the Democrats in the primaries and Mitt Romney for the Republicans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was thinking that if Barack Obama wins the presidential election, that could really be bad for the lawful use of firearms by law abiding citizens? He said that he's for making a national ban of concealed carry, even if you have a concealed permit. Congress is already Democrat, and if Obama gets in (who seems more against guns than Hilary even is), and he appoints judges who are with him, there won't be too many checks and balances and that could mean lights out for us?

 

[Javelin]

Not without Congress and Senate sponsorship. Even then the President can veto the thing and possibly delay it for a couple of years (if Senate can push the Bill back through).

 

[ieszu]

There is always the potential for a new constitutional convention... If I am correct in remembering, you need 3/4 the states to approve such a thing, but then we could end up in a monarchy or worse... Everything gets thrown out the window!

 

[armoredman]

Consitutional Convention would be a baaaaaaaaaaaaaad idea. Mob rule. The mob today is drugged up, zoned out, and whacked. Who would our New Founding Fathers be, Snoop Dogg and Eminem?

 

[PennsyPlinker]

I don't think that states have to succumb to Federal law at all. Technically they are independent entities. Of course, you know how well that went over back in 1861. Today instead of sending troops, the Feds withhold highway funding and other monies extracted from the residents of any particular state which dares to defy the leviathan.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Civics 101:

No, the states can't make agreements among themselves..HOWEVER, the areas and topics over which the feds can make law is pretty limited. If the feds act outside their authority, the states can do a couple of things, ranging from suits in federal courts to state legislation limiting federal impact and jurisdiction.

Obama's proposal to ban concealed carry wouldnt' pass constitutional muster in at least 3 ways. 2nd Amendment aside, the feds couldn't really claim jurisdiction without appealing to abuses of "the mystical magical commerce clause lets us do whatever we want" mojo.

 

[Blackbeard]

The answer is yes. If enough states send enough senators and representatives to Congress, they can change Federal law at will.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

So Blackbeard, the answer is no, that the states can't over rule something if enough get together to vote, outside of the usual Congress?

I don't think that states have to succumb to Federal law at all.

I was just wondering, doesn't the Constitution say that the Federal Government is the supreme say in the nation? Like if a state says you can't carry an unloaded firearm locked in the trunk across their state to go to a different state, the federal law that says that their law that you can go from one legal state to another over rides that?

 

[marshall3]

Already tried

The states tried getting together back in the 1860s, and hundreds of thousands of citizens were killed for it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The scary thing is that enough Americans are so ignorant of the law that they believe or fear that he can do what he proposes on concealed carry.

 

[Soybomb]

Who would our New Founding Fathers be, Snoop Dogg and Eminem?

I'm not really familiar with either artist but I have heard a couple Eminem songs that seem to attempt to inspire listeners to vote or be politically active and a couple that seem to be pro 1st and 2nd amendment. Thats not entirely surprising given that people with unpopular things to say, like say pornographers, often are strong voices for freedom of speech. Eminem may not be a role model for youth but at least I think he wouldn't vote to restrict my freedom of speech by banning flag burning as one popular senator and republican candidate for president has. I'm actually more frightened by those who are real people in power that don't respect freedom than I am of the thought of people that feel like those values are important and neglected speaking out.

Anyway back to the question at hand, how can the fed have preemption for safe transportation as in FOPA and could it apply here? It of course also neglects that the majority of states are shall issue and it would be a tough sell to federal reps to vote for such a thing anyway.

 

[Kipling79]

Well, I am rusty on this stuff, even though I learned ALOT about it last year. My short term memory is horrible.

I am pretty sure "Geekwith.45" is right. The fed dosn't have the power to make laws for "the general welfare of the people" like states do. BUT, if they can make a concealed carry law fit under the commerce clause or the spending power, the law is considered constitutional and the states are pretty much bound to it.

 

[revjen45]

Interesting information at http://foavc.org/

 

[TallPine]

Yes, the states can over-rule a federal law - right up until the minute the bombing starts and the armored division rolls in

You don't suppose they are practicing in Eye-Rock for nothing, do you ?

 

[elrod]

The several states have the power to unite and pass or defeat items being considered for law. This is done through the representative system of government. The Federal Government, in and of itself, cannot legislate law. This is the job of the congress, i.e., state Senators and Representatives. Agencys of the Federal Government do, however, issue "regulations" that carry the weight of law if they have the enabling legislation to regulate. Some of these agencys are the EPA, BATFE, and OSHA. IMO, these are the problem "laws" that bedevil the public. I don't know of any way to reduce these regulations (read job security for bureaucrats) other than the abolition of that agency. Yeah, I know that's probably a pipe dream, but one can still dream.

 

[another okie]

I agree that Obama's plan should be unconstitutional, if the actual words of the Constitution mean anything.

But it doesn't sound all that different in principle from the law now in effect requiring states to allow LEOs from other jurisdictions to carry. If they can allow it, they can forbid it.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

Gee, let's not forget the will of the people.

ANYTHING is possible so long as the people will it, with force if neccessary.

When the country has so many opposing views it's hard to believe we're
United or will remain as such forever.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

The states could do whatever they wanted if they could fight for it.

 

[PennsyPlinker]

I was just wondering, doesn't the Constitution say that the Federal Government is the supreme say in the nation?

No, it does not. The short answer is, the Constitution was designed to protect States rights. The real answer is that might makes right. President Lincoln gave us the beginning of the huge centralized federal government we have today. It was not meant to be that way originally, but our government, like every other, has grown and granted itself power in its own interest to sustain itself, not because of its benevolent interest in its citizens.

The biggest loophole we have, and which has already been mentioned, is the interstate commerce clause. Anything that could possibly pass over a state line is subjected to this clause, and Congress uses it without restraint to make any law they want to make, whether or not it makes sense or is Constitutional. We do not have noble, honest people of integrity working for us in Congress. We have thieves, criminals of all sorts, and the lower ranks of society who live off the life blood of others working there to govern us.

And I am sure these words are being recorded somewhere to use against me someday, but they are just a few among many, so I am not too worried.

 

[GRB]

The scary thing is that enough Americans are so ignorant of the law that they believe or fear that he can do what he proposes on concealed carry.

He may well be able to place a federal ban on concealed carry which would mean no carry on interstate highways, on federal property such as national forests, and so forth. If you do not think that can happen, you are indeed being shortsighted. Plenty of people did not fear Hitler all that much before he was ELECTED into office, not even after he was elected. Then he started to do things that as you would put it, 'only those ignorant of the law would have believed he could have done'. No you should not consider it scary that people believe Obama could effect a federal ban on CCW, you should be afraid that too many peoople are complacent in the status quo to believe it could NOT happen.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[mekender]

For example, if they were to do a national ban on concealed carry, could they get together and over rule it?

it would get appealed to a federal court and the claim would be that the .gov had interferred in matters that were reserved for the states... this would fall under the 9th and 10th amendments...

restricting concealed carry would be a power not enumerated in the constitution, and it would be something that was left up to the states...

now it can be argued that by enacting laws such as the laws in chicago, DC, NYC and CA that the states have violated the 9th and 10th amendment by stepping on the 2nd... but that would be a fight that would take a whole lot of legal dollars... DC Vs. heller is coming close to that now though...

 

[mp510]

the feds couldn't really claim jurisdiction without appealing to abuses of "the mystical magical commerce clause lets us do whatever we want" mojo.
__________________

It wouldn't be a stretch for the Supreme Court to apply the magic wand also known as the interstate commerce clause to an intrastate concealed carry ban a la what Obama has been campaigning for. If you recall, there was constitutionally suspect rulings during the civil rights movement era that struck down segregation in intrastate busing (in various manners) that relied on the interstate commerce clause in order to fall into federal jurisdiction. In fact, the Civil Rights Act largely relies on an abuse of the interstate commerce clause to justify enforcement (for many sections, especially regarding behavior that is only concievebly of an intrastate nature).

 

[bigun15]

I'm trying to think back to my high school years on government.

I'm in it right now. Apparently, in the Constitution there's a list of things the FedGov can do. Now as we all know they've stepped WAY out of line on these things but technically it would be unconstitutional to pass the national CCW law. It's not on the list.

 

[Samuel Adams]

Article V of the US Constitution. Know this document in its original intent, folks. Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers too.

 

[kd7nqb]

There is an argument to be made that there is a difference between theory and practice. Oregon knows this very deeply. Both our "doctor asstied suicide" and medical marijuana laws have been attacked by the federal government. Both have been viewed as violation of drug control laws. However both are still in practice in Oregon. Part of the reason behind this is that other states have similar laws and essentially the .gov has to either pick on all the states or none at all. So, no legally they cant band together in a show of support but they can kinda lobby for each other.