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

[LAK]

It is a matter of jurisdiction.

The federal gov has jurisdiction on federal territories, property (ports, military bases etc) and anywhere a state has ceded or partially ceded jurisdiction, and in the case certain matters specified in the Constitution.

On an issue where the federal gov claims or has has usurped jurisdiction unlawfully (via an erroneous Supreme Court ruling for example) if enough state governors, back by their legislatures, simply called their bluff I doubt that there would be an actual conflict of force. Unfortunately most state govs capitulated to too much a long time ago.

I do not think though that it would take more than a half dozen states to get a backbone, and things could be back on track again. Better would be a pres that would do the right thing with pen strokes from his Office.

-----------------------------------------------

http://searchcronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Samuel Adams]

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 45

The US Constitution lists only 4 crimes - Treason, Counterfeiting, Postal Crimes and Crimes on the High Seas. Today's Federal criminal code has over 900 crimes.

The Anti-Federalists were right. Our elected "leaders" need a reminder of what the 10th Amendment means.

 

[GuyWithQuestions]

What about Article VI of the U.S. Constitution?

One thing that had me worried about possibly passing a National concealed carry ban is Article VI of the U.S. 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Could there be a way to use that to somehow make some law to ban all concealed carry, if they used it just right?

 

[Samuel Adams]

If they took that clause to heart they would be playing by the rules. In that case, they would have to amend the Constitution per Article V.

 

[mekender]

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.

and i bet if the .gov decided that it was enough of a problem, they could and would withhold federal funding... that would make most states fall in line really quickly...

i am surprised that they haven't done it yet on the illegal immigration sanctuary cities... but then again, they dont see it as a big enough problem

 

[ilbob]

states, and citizens, have a lot more power than you might think. its just that a lot of that power is not written down anywhere.

 

[geekWithA.45]

GuyW/?:

"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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The article Article VI clause you fear clearly limits itself to laws made in pursuance...which means that the laws made shall conform to the restrictions of finite granted Powers, etc. Laws or acts of legislature, executive, or judiciary that are not in pursuance are repugnant to the Constitution and null & void.

 

[atblis]

Sure

Sticks and Carrots.

The Fed Gov redistributes money. Don't do what they want and...

Why is the drinking age pretty much universally 21? It used to be 18, and most states were just fine with that.

 

[RPCVYemen]

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.

The power of the purse string is pretty powerful. Making Federal aid for highways and school, etc. conditional on actions by the state legislature will do the trick in most cases. Most states would buckle in a heartbeat - remember the 55 mph speed limit?

The Feds also have the power to tax.

Note that a Constitutional Convention is a complete wild card. It could - for example - rescind or reword the 2nd Amendment (or any other).

Mike

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

By what law would the President have the power to create such a ban such as to limit CCW on interstates and on federal property? Maybe by executive order? If so, what laws would it be acting under to be valid?

Comparing the rise of Hitler and his directives with the rise of somebody like Obama isn't even a realistic comparison.

As for being more afraid of ignorance or more afraid of complacency, I will have to say that ignorance wins out. Many folks are complacent because they are ignorant.

 

[TallPine]

By what law would the President have the power to create such a ban such as to limit CCW on interstates and on federal property? Maybe by executive order? If so, what laws would it be acting under to be valid?

Why would it have to be valid ???

We have lots of federal laws right now that are not valid under a strict reading of the constitution.

In fact, I don't believe we really have a constitution anymore. It means whatever 9 guys say it means, regardless of what it means.

 

[ilbob]

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).

I would tend to agree that the interstate commerce clause is of dubious benefit in civil rights cases. It would seem to me that a more direct approach through the 14th would have made more sense. Something like:

states regulate intra-state bus service, thus it falls under the 14th amendment.

 

[RPCVYemen]

It means whatever 9 guys say it means, regardless of what it means.

But it says it means whatever those 9 guys say it means.

Mike

 

[ilbob]

Comparing the rise of Hitler and his directives with the rise of somebody like Obama isn't even a realistic comparison.

Are you saying Obama is potentially worse?

Keep in mind when Hitler was at a similar stage in his political career he was not considered to be especially bad. Most Germans just did not care much about his real policies as long as he promised them things would improve. A very similar analogy can be draw to Obama since there is little we know about just what he is in favor of.

 

[mekender]

By what law would the President have the power to create such a ban such as to limit CCW on interstates and on federal property? Maybe by executive order? If so, what laws would it be acting under to be valid?

since the president has zero power to make laws, the answer to your question is none... congress could make such a law, but the president cannot... if congress did, it would get appealed to a court, probably for several rounds though i doubt it would make it to SCOTUS...

an executive order does not make law, and as such, in order for it to become law, it must be voted on by both the house and senate...

 

[v35]

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.

Geek, I take absolutely no comfort in that. The Commerce Clause has been so tortured it's not a stretch at all to think it would be applied in justifying a nationwide prohibition on CCW.

 

[Zedicus]

an executive order does not make law, and as such, in order for it to become law, it must be voted on by both the house and senate.

Tell that to Bush, he's been Adding So-called New Laws by EO & adding Write ins to Laws/Bills he signs.

Don't Believe me? Go Research it.

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

The state all agree to be bound by Federal Law. That's part of being a nation. So no, a state can not IGNORE a Federal Law or repeal a Federal Law.

The only method for the states to vote in or pressure their Representative to introduce legislation on changing/removing the law.

For example, if Obama+Congress banned all semi-automatics and that was a Federal Law, all semi-autos would be banned everywhere, no matter what.

The only way for that to be repealed is either A) The Supreme Court says its unConstitutional or B) The people of the states elect new Representatives who remove the law from the book.

 

[Tribal]

Speaking of the Commerce Clause, is anyone here a lawyer? I'm wondering if Congress would have the power to regulate a firearm built, sold, and kept in one state. For instance, an Alexander Arms AR-15 bought in Richmond and kept in Charlottesville or a Kel-Tec PLR-16 bought in Miami and kept in Tallahassee.

 

[Samuel Adams]

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make commerce "regular" between the sovereign states. Now it means anything Congress wants it to mean.

 

[mp510]

Speaking of the Commerce Clause, is anyone here a lawyer? I'm wondering if Congress would have the power to regulate a firearm built, sold, and kept in one state. For instance, an Alexander Arms AR-15 bought in Richmond and kept in Charlottesville or a Kel-Tec PLR-16 bought in Miami and kept in Tallahassee.

At one point in time, they may have very well been protected from federal regulation.

In integral part of Tot v. United States and United States v. Delia
was section 2(f) of the Federal Firearms Act, which said:

'It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence or is a fugutive (fugitive) from justice to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this Act.'

(Copied from Tot v. US, highlighting by myself) While that equaled an effective felon in posession prohibition, there could have been room to challenge such a charge IF a defendant could prove that the firearm had not traveled or been shipped across state lines. However, that was the law in 1938- it was repealed in 1968 by the Gun Control act, which placed an outright posession on felons in posession- rather than a prohibition on sales to felons by licensees (the Federal Firearms Act created the original FFL system). In 1971, United States v. Bass (404 US 336) did examine the current law- agreeable to your thinking.

It is not clear from the language and legislative history of § 1202(a)(1) whether or not receipt or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon has to be shown in an individual prosecution to have been connected with interstate commerce. The ambiguity of this provision (which is not only a criminal statute but one whose broad construction would define as a federal offense conduct readily proscribed by the States), must therefore be resolved in favor of the narrower reading that a nexus with interstate commerce must be shown with respect to all three offenses embraced by the provision

In 1976 Barrett v. United States (423 US 212) feld that a firearm that any firearm that had ever corssed state lines- independent of the felon buyer- was subject to regulation. It was obvious that there was legislative intent to prevent a class of people from posessing weapons. Let us also not forget Wickard v. Filburn, (317 U.S. 111, 1942), through which the Supreme Court has given the green light to federal interference in intrastate commerce IF the intrastate commerce COULD affect interstate commerce. Emphasis on the word could- which requires no proof that it did or actually would.

 

[sandwich]

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

Yes, it does. It is called the Supremacy clause. It basically says that Federal Law trumps state law. It's why the people in California can't smoke pot.

As for the original question, yes, they can overrule federal law by passing an amendment to the Constitution, but it is unlikely to ever happen. Or, they could sue the Federal Government and let the SC decide if the law is Constitutional.

Also, checks and balances refer to the three branches of federal Government, not the interactions between State and Federal Government.

Finally, the Civil war wasn't started because the states broke off from the Union. It started because the South attacked the North (at Fort Sumter).

 

[sandwich]

Tell that to Bush, he's been Adding So-called New Laws by EO & adding Write ins to Laws/Bills he signs.

Don't Believe me? Go Research it.

The write ins can be challenged in the courts I believe. As for EO, those have to be overruled by the next President. They are Unconstitutional in any event (at least in my opinion). And they are law.

 

[sandwich]

No, the states can't make agreements among themselves

Yes they can. That is how my CC permit is accepted by other states.

 

[sandwich]

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.

Congress is a part of the Federal Government, so yes, the Federal Government can make law. The agencies you cited are a part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and even they (the EPA in particular) can make de facto law. It is not Constitutional, but it happens.