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

[ilbob]

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

A couple of things about executive orders and signing statements.

Executive orders are neither illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. EVERY president since GW has used them. They are how the president implements the laws congress passes.

Signing statements have also been around a long time. Most of the time they indicate how the president views vague or unconstitutional clauses of the law. How else are executive branch employees to decide what they mean? If they are unclear, its up to the president to clarify them. One of the more infamous signing statements had to do with a border security bill. Some congressman had a stipulation put into law that a specific border station was to be manned 24/7. GWB signed the thing into law, noting with a signing statement that (quite properly in my mind) such a directive from congress would be exercising executive power rather than legislative power, so essentially he planned to man the border station as he saw fit.

 

[sandwich]

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.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about concealed carry. It doesn't even explicitly say we can keep our guns. It says we can "keep and bear arms," but what does that mean? Where do we keep them? Where do we bear them? That is all up to interpretation by the SC.

In the past, the SC has said that means we can "keep and bear arms" in the manner we do now, but that doesn't mean that someday it could be interpreted to mean that we can "keep" our weapons in state armories and "bear" them in the context of militia training.

You could write a book on interpreting the 2nd Amendment (and many have).

 

[mpmarty]

Montana just passed or tried to pass a state law which exempted from all federal firearms laws sales and possession of firearms manufactured in Montana and sold exclusively to Montana residents. I do not know the status of this new state law. Can anyone in Montana shed some light on this for us?

 

[sandwich]

Executive orders are neither illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. EVERY president since GW has used them. They are how the president implements the laws congress passes.

Just because they have been used for a long time does not make them Constitutional. If an EO changes the nature of a law, or acts as a de facto law, it is Unconstitutional.

 

[Zedicus]

Executive orders are neither illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. EVERY president since GW has used them. They are how the president implements the laws congress passes.

Signing statements have also been around a long time. Most of the time they indicate how the president views vague or unconstitutional clauses of the law. How else are executive branch employees to decide what they mean? If they are unclear, its up to the president to clarify them. One of the more infamous signing statements had to do with a border security bill. Some congressman had a stipulation put into law that a specific border station was to be manned 24/7. GWB signed the thing into law, noting with a signing statement that (quite properly in my mind) such a directive from congress would be exercising executive power rather than legislative power, so essentially he planned to man the border station as he saw fit.

That is not what I meant, I was referring to the way Bush has Been using them as De-Facto Laws on numerous ocations.

 

[Jaenak]

I don't care if all 50 states vote on it, the only way the states can legally overturn a federal law is by making and passing another constitutional ammendment. Otherwise, the federal government ALWAYS runs rough shot over the state governments even if all 50 states are against it.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

It's true that the states, through convention, can pass amendments. I'm pretty sure it has never been done. There would be no need to establish a monarchy, or fear mob rule (which is what we already have, they call it the Fed). The government works fine (the way it is written on the Constitution, which is not flawless, but it is the best we can do), we just need to abide by it. Re-Ratify the Constitution, and then throw out all laws that are unconstitutional.

Amendment 10, is my favorite:

"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."

If that isn't a wide open door for personal liberty, I don't know what would be.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

Executive orders are neither illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. EVERY president since GW has used them. They are how the president implements the laws congress passes.

If issued correctly, executive orders are fine. The problem arises when the laws that congress passes are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the third branch of our government (Judicial) has been dormant for the past . . . heck, nearly forever since its creation. The final check and balance effectively sleeps through the passing of these unconstitutional laws. It is a travesty.

 

[TallPine]

The states used to have a mechanism to keep the "federal" government in check - it was called the Senate.

 

[ilbob]

Just because they have been used for a long time does not make them Constitutional. If an EO changes the nature of a law, or acts as a de facto law, it is Unconstitutional.

Not necessarily. If that law itself impinges on executive power, it is clearly unconstitutional, and thus the president is completely correct in ignoring at least that part of the law. I would challenge you to show a single EO that is either unconstitutional or attempts to usurp legislative authority. Just one. I don't think you can do it.

If issued correctly, executive orders are fine. The problem arises when the laws that congress passes are unconstitutional.

If some part of a law is unconstitutional, there is no need for the president to abide by it. Most of us have been snookered into believing that the courts have exclusive power to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. I happen to believe that it is incumbent upon the executive branch to also make such a determination.

 

[Nobody's_Hero]

^^^

As someone stated earlier, the people in our government swear upon oath to uphold the Constitution. If everyone abided by that oath, there would be no need for the courts to interpret whether or not a law is constitutional.

If you have a president who is wise enough not to enact any executive orders that enforce an unconstitutional law, that's wonderful in my opinion. I think that is what you are getting at. But I'm just worried about the times when congress and the president work together to pass unconstitutional laws and acts (defeating the purpose of 'checks and balances') and the judicial system just sits there, with its thumb up its [strike]as[/strike] nose, going along with whatever (the final blow to 'checks and balances'). I was thinking about this at work today and it occurred to me that we perhaps actually have a 4th 'check and balance', and that would be the people ('consent of the governed').

Edit: Tall Pine mentioned the Senate. I can go with that. The problem now is that there is too much "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" going around between congress and the president. Meanwhile, no one is reading the Constitution.

 

[WildeKurt]

Tall Pine mentioned the Senate. I can go with that. The problem now is that there is too much "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" going around between congress and the president. Meanwhile, no one is reading the Constitution.

My biggest concern is with who the Senate actually represents. Is it 'the people' or is it the campaign contributors? So much law is subverted by the various special interests and those with the largest amounts of cash get heard first.

Hell, even with the judicial branch, does anyone worry about who'd qualified to interpret the constitution or are we more worried about who will best represent our single issue, be it abortion, prayer in school, etc. I think if truly qualified people sit on the bench and populate both the executive and legislative branch the constitution will fulfill it's intended purpose.

 

[TallPine]

My biggest concern is with who the Senate actually represents. Is it 'the people' or is it the campaign contributors? So much law is subverted by the various special interests and those with the largest amounts of cash get heard first.

I thought it was obvious to all that Senators used to be (up till about 90 yrs ago) selected by the state legislators rather than by general election. This meant that the states themselves were represented in the Senate, and the people in the House of Representatives.

Thus senate selections were free from out of state campaign contributions.

The threat of nullification also used to be a powerful opposition to federal (national, in reality) tyranny. That's been pretty much extinguished since Father Abraham bashed the southern states into submission.

The Real ID rebellion among certain states is an interesting development though - it remains to be seen who will blink.

 

[DrewH]

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?

Short answer: no they can't do this. States could sue and try to strike a law on constituional, or other grounds, but they can't get together and vote to ignore a federal law.

 

[ServiceSoon]

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.

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.

Does the federal gov have the authority to regulate wheat grown for home consupmtion? Yes! Source

 

[the naked prophet]

Isn't that what the Senate was supposed to be? Each state legislature would choose two delegates to the US legislature. In that way, the state governments would be represented in the US government. If enough states got together (enough would be defined as 25 1/2 states) they could block any bill from passing.