Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Question for lawyers about states rights

Discussion in 'Legal' started by somerandomguy, Feb 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    Messages:
    314
    I've heard somewhere that a state constitution trumps ALL federal laws due to the states rights clause part of the federal constitution. So theoretically if Iowa passed a state constitution provision stating that:

    "Adult citizens have the right to purchase, keep, carry, and bear; firearms, ammunition, and accessories, regardless of type, functionality, or use."

    That federal law COULD NOT override it. Is that true? If so, we might want to also try fighting gun control at the state level starting with the pro- 2nd ammendment states.
     
  2. Crashola

    Crashola Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    Idaho
  3. danprkr

    danprkr Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,337
    Sadly we lost that fight in 1864
     
  4. InkEd

    InkEd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2009
    Messages:
    2,575
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Yep.
     
  5. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,816
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Actually, we lost that fight with the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act when the Roosevelt Administration federalized gun control, which before then had been exclusively a matter for the states.

    Under the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, the federal Constitution and federal laws have always trumped state constitutions and state laws.
     
  6. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    The U.S. Constitution was set up so that the federal government only had the powers expressly provided to it by the Constitution, and all others powers were reserved to the States. Nothing has changed in that regard since the Constitution was originally ratified.

    Over time, however, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal powers in the Constitition more and more broadly, particularly during the FDR years. The biggest offender has been the Commerce Clause, which the federal government now uses as the basis for almost all of its legislation. As the scope of the Commerce Clause increased, the powers reserved to the States decreased.
     
  7. CarolinaChuck

    CarolinaChuck member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    65
    I ain't no lawyer, so take it for what it is worth. There is no such provision in the Constitution; I believe you are refering to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

    If that's the case, there is a legal difference to an anmendment and a rewritting and a revision in the eyes of the law.

    The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and the Bill of Rights is subjugated to it. I do notice that the weasels in DC take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and not the Bill of Rights...

    You can send the lawyers back in now, if you can trust em.

    Chuck
     
  8. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,263
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    You heard wrong.

    No. Federal law absolutely can, and does, override.

    See the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2 (emphasis added):

    And yes, I'm a lawyer.

    Some folks might be interested in Spat McGee's (another lawyer on this board and a moderator over at TFL) little primer on the Constitution.
     
  9. Outlaw Man

    Outlaw Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,870
    Location:
    Cleaning my guns.
    The key phrase is "made in Pursuance thereof." State Constitution (or even the lack of any law whatsoever) trumps an unconstitutional federal law.

    But guess who you have to convince....
     
  10. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,263
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    But you don't get to decide whether a federal law is unconstitutional. That will be up to the U. S. Supreme Court.

    That's something else the Founding Fathers provided for in the Constitutions (Article III):

    And thus disagreements concerning the application of the the Constitution to the resolution of particular disputes is the province of the federal courts -- something clearly the Founders intended.

    The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute.

    And, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):

    Note also that many of the Founding Fathers (the delegates to the Constitutional Convention who signed the Constitution) were lawyers. They were familiar with English Common Law (the basis of out legal system) and that for a long time it had been customary for the courts, under the Common Law, to consider the validity of such matters as the Acts of Parliament and the actions of the Crown under the rather amorphous collection of statutes, court judgments, treaties, etc., that became understood in the Common Law to be the English Constitution. And thus there was Common Law precedent, as no doubt understood by the Founding Fathers, for the invalidation of a law as unconstitutional being within the scope of the exercise of judicial power. (And English cases continued to be cites by courts of the United States for many years after Independence.)

    And while John Marshall may not have been a Founding Father, he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, he should at least be entitled to be considered a founding uncle. He was a delegate to the Virginia Convention that would ratify or reject the Constitution and, together with James Madison and Edmund Randolf, led the fight for ratification.
     
  11. Outlaw Man

    Outlaw Man Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,870
    Location:
    Cleaning my guns.
    I don't disagree at all, Frank. Just pointing out the slim chance where the OP could be "correct."

    I'm with you on Marshall. He's much like John Adams, who missed out on the Convention, but had a great hand in writing many of the items within it. However, Marshall is nearly unknown to anyone who doesn't study that era on their own.
     
  12. yinyangdc

    yinyangdc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    Messages:
    91
    Pardon me if my ignorance is showing, but don't amendments, once ratified, become part of the Constitution, over-riding any previous applicable article in the Constitution?
     
  13. 1911austin

    1911austin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2003
    Messages:
    370
    Location:
    Austin, TX


    You are 100% correct. In addition, the states would not have ratified the Constitution without the understanding that the Bill of Rights would happen. The original Constitution recognize the enumerated powers of the Federal Government but the anti-federalist insisted on a “Bill of Rights” to protect the states and citizens from the Federal Government.
     
  14. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,263
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Understood. I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.


    Yinyangdc is essentially correct. An amendment to the Constitution indeed becomes part of the Constitution and supersedes any prior, inconsistent provision.
     
  15. gatorjames85

    gatorjames85 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    457
    Location:
    N. Central FL
    The Bill of Rights, like any other amendment are part of the Constitution.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page