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

Wyoming takes stand against Federal Gov't

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Trent, Jan 10, 2013.

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

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,004
    Location:
    Illinois
    If they pass that, and Wyoming state troopers really try to stop and arrest Federal agents serving a Federal warrant... I hope they sell tickets. I'd pay to see that show.
     
  2. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What makes you think that is even an option that the governor and legislature would even seriously consider?

    Remember in 1960 when U. S. Marshals escorted a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.

    Remember in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.

    Remember in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville. Then the intervention of a federal court in Birmingham got the four students enrolled.
     
  3. tulsamal

    tulsamal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    801
    Location:
    Vinita, OK
    Remember when California passed a law allowing medical marijuana? And the Feds yelled and screamed that it was against the law and said they were going to shut these places down? And yet over time the CA law became looser and looser until anybody with a headache can get a prescription? And the "Pot Clubs" are still open right now?

    Remember when other states followed CA's lead and the Feds against rattled their saber? And yet those places are still open and more states are considering the same?

    And finally, remember when Colorado "took the next step" and said you didn't need a prescription, you just needed to be an adult and you could carry it around, grow it at home, or ultimately even buy it from open stores? The Feds warned everybody this was illegal... and yet it is going on right now.

    I'm absolutely not going to argue that state law preempts Fed law. But what matters is what is actually enforced on the ground and who does the enforcement. If CO police aren't going to arrest people for an ounce of grass in their pockets, it appears that the Feds aren't going to send in teams of Federal LEO's to arrest them either.

    In the case of your examples, it is sort of the opposite sort of situation. You have a very small and discrete number of people who are having their civil rights taken away from them. So the Feds could then go into that state and escort those people directly. I live next door to Arkansas, we remember the Little Rock High School. And the South is a different animal today; you would be hard pressed to find people who think that was a bad idea.

    But escorting seven teenagers to the classroom is a whole lot different from trying to police an entire state. The only comparison that makes sense to me is Prohibition. There were states and local areas where the production of moonshine was a long standing tradition and people were unwilling to give it up. And yet the local law enforcement wouldn't help. So Federal agents really did go around the country busting these people. It would be interesting to compare their manpower from ten years earlier to their numbers at the height of Prohibition. Just how many Federal agents did it take to do this? And did it actually accomplish anything since the historical record says that people continued to be able to buy alcohol during this time?

    Gregg
     
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    That is a matter of "prosecutorial discretion." A prosecuting authority gets to decide when, where and how to enforce criminal laws. So a prosecuting authority, like the United States Justice Department may decide as a matter of policy to go easy on something like recreational or medical marijuana in a State which has legalized such, at least under some circumstances. Such a policy decision might be driven by a conclusion that enough people, particularly among an administration's constituency, find the conduct relatively benign. That might not be the case with other matters.

    In any case, the feds haven't been giving marijuana a complete pass; for example see --

     
  5. IlikeSA

    IlikeSA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Well, even if Wyoming passed the law and local or state level law enforcement enforced it: even if the federal agent got off, it still means the agent was delayed from what he was doing and had to go through a whole lot of trouble and time to get off the charge. I think that would be worth it, in my eyes.
     
  6. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    Well, truth be told here it's all about power.

    Either Wyoming has the stones to tell the Feds no. And there are several other states that back them up, and say no. Or they don't.

    It's also about how far either side is willing to go.

    The ultimate in telling the Feds to sit and spin would be withholding tax revenue from them.

    Below that is ignoring the Feds. And it tracks farther away from there.

    The lowest the Feds go is simply inundating the states with agents.

    The highest would be arresting state officials.

    We all can bandy about regarding law here all we want, but it's a game of brinksmanship, power, and restraint. It's chess, not checkers. And the law is backseated here.

    Oh, and Wyoming does not succeed here, unless atleast 12 other states join it.
     
  7. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,195
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
  8. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,397
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    It certainly is going to be interesting. It almost sounds..............................free. Imagine that.
     
  9. colorado_handgunner

    colorado_handgunner Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    538
    Location:
    Florence, SC
    South Carolina thought that way and tried it around 150 years ago. Didn't work out well for either side.

    I hope we don't repeat history.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
     
  10. Evergreen

    Evergreen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    Well Frank, I cannot debate you in any depth on laws, as you are a lawyer and I am not. I am finding that now the situation is so dire it is time for me to sit down and start studying the various laws and see how they apply to the different scenarios that are arising, such as the state of Wyoming resisting Federal mandates.

    From an ethical and practical standpoint I can make a comment of your post. What I would like to comment about your post is this: you are discussing about the Federal government stepping in to defend the rights of American citizens during the Jim Crow era. Basically, the Federal government with a large amount of support from within the Southern States as well as a majority of the country wanted to abolish the Jim Crow era laws.

    Basically, the Southern states took away the very same basic rights that the Federal government now seeks to remove from us. These are Constitutional rights. I find your examples very interesting, because it seems like the situation is totally reversed.

    In the 1960s, we had the Federal government challenging states for going against the Constitution. Today, we have states challenging the Federal government for going against the Constitution. So, basically, the Federal government was working to help restore Constitutional rights for black American citizens in the South. But today, they are seeking to take away Constitutional rights from American citizens. What is easier for the Federal government to do against the State, to remove the rights of its citizens or to restore them?

    Perhaps the tides have turned in this situation? Basically, the Federal government is seeking to disarm the population to the dismay of large number of American citizens. The 40% of the country who is against gun control or AWB is probably passionately against it. The 60% who supports "some kind" of gun control, probably is not so passionate about the cause. More likely it would be even in the lower 20% of people who felt as passionate to ban guns as those who are against the ban.

    What I think is the Federal government will have an uphill battle that will require a considerable effort to enforce and it is facing a population that will not give up its freedom easily. Just as many people were ready to die and fight for the freedom of blacks, I feel a great number are ready to fight and defend the freedoms of the American people and their 2nd Amendment rights. We must not forget the large number of civil right activists who lost their lives and spent considerable time in prison, such as Martin Luther King Jr, for fighting for their Constitutional freedoms.

    I also think Wyoming will not be alone in this, shall I call it, an "uprising". As the State government is now at odds with the Federal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  11. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    I would argue that it's a little unfair to compare the history of desegregation to the current atmosphere of the State/Fed showdown over the Second Amendment. Constitutionally speaking, I'd say that a State absolutely has the right to nullify unconstitutional Federal laws. Some here have cited caselaw to prove otherwise, but we need to remember that the power of judicial review was one that the Supreme Court foisted upon itself in Marbury v. Madison. So essentially the Supreme Court decided that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of the Constitution.

    So while I believe there's an argument to be made that it's completely Constitutional for a State to nullify unconstitutional Federal laws, we should also keep in mind that the Founders didn't believe the Constitution "granted" any rights in the first place. Your rights were given to you by "nature and nature's god" and as such pre-date and exist completely independently of what any piece of paper says. They asserted their rights (quite "illegally", I might add) without a Constitution in the first place. They simply knew what their rights were and took action to redeem them.

    So it all comes back to which political entity is willing to go further. I do believe that today is a highly different atmosphere concerning Federal power enforcement than it was in 1860. The North had the willpower and manpower to win a terrible war of attrition at that time. I highly doubt the Federal Government could find enough dedicated trigger pullers in today's society to carry out its bidding should it face any type of attrition rate.

    JMO.
     
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    On one hand that is correct. But the point is the lengths to which the federal government can go and has gone to enforce the Supremacy Clause.

    Judicial review is really on much more solid ground than that. Actually, it effectively flows from the Constitution.


    • In the Constitution the Founding Fathers assigned the federal courts the authority to decide cases arising under the Constitution (Constitution of the United States, Article III):

    • 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.
     
  13. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Not just the federal government. Look at the law just passed in New York and the law being introduced in Massachusetts. Consider the existing laws in Illinois, New Jersey and California -- all more draconian in some respects than federal law.

    And with regard to judicial review, should the Supreme Court not have exercised its constitutionally assigned authority for the purpose of deciding Heller and McDonald?
     
  14. Evergreen

    Evergreen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Seattle, Washington
    Frank, when I was talking about the State, I was referring to the state of Wyoming, not all the states in the USA, which, as you stated, have implemented even more draconian laws than even what the Federal government is attempting. In a perfect world, the Federal government should be coming in to help states abolish anti-constitutional laws, not to abolish constitutional laws, such as those guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I'm hoping if this insanity ends, that in fact the Supreme Court, like Heller v. McDonald will rule against the new anti-2A laws passed in New York.

    I think I understand the point you are making about the Supreme Court exercising its authority over a dispute between the Federal and the State governments. To be honest, the whole Supreme Court system is something I never entirely understood. What happens if the Supreme Court itself supports an unconstitutional law? Then does it become constitutional?

    What if the State of Wyoming and a majority of its populace as well as other states resist this ruling, because they believe it is unconstitutional? I do realize this is a double edge sword here and, as with Jim Crow, states can abuse power. Is the Supreme Court the only check and balance between the abuse of power from the Federal and State governments?
     
  15. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,195
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    If this should happen, then there is still a feedback loop whereby the citizens may affect changes. This is through the Legislative Branch. Citizens can work through their representatives to affect a change in the law or to amend the Constitution itself.

    It is also possible for the Executive Branch to weigh in on such matters as well. The Executive Branch, within limits, can decide what they will and will not enforce, and how much resources in which to apply in any efforts to enforce.

    It is convoluted...but it was designed to be that way in order to give each branch some means in which to balance the powers of the other two.
     
  16. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    • The real point is that as a matter of law the Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional. So the notion of "the Supreme Court itself supports an unconstitutional law" really has no meaning. You might not consider the law to be constitutional, but in the context of the law, your opinion doesn't count. It's the opinion of the Supreme Court that counts.

    • Of course, whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests.

      There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

      Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.

    • And sometimes when the law as applied by a court doesn't achieve a satisfactory result, a legislature can change the law -- checks and balances at work.

      One fairly recent example that comes immediately to mind involves 18 USC 922(q), the federal Gun Free School Zone Act. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the law as originally enacted was unconstitutional (United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995)). Thereafter, Congress reenacted the law revised in a manner intended to overcome the objections of the Supreme Court.

      More recently there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

    • And the real importance of understanding this is to help us be sure to properly focus on the true issues confronting us. Folks toss around "it's unconstitutional" far too casually whenever they think something the government has done is wrong, unwise, bad policy or they just don't like it. However, the fact is that a great many improper, unwise, useless or dangerous things the government can do would be found by a court to be entirely constitutional.

      If we think an action by government is bad idea or bad public policy, and if we want to try to effectively oppose that action, it's not enough to simply claim that it's unconstitutional. Maybe if we decide to take the time and spend the money we could convince a court to so rule -- or maybe not.

      So we also need to be able to counter governmental process on its merits -- articulate why it is a bad idea or bad public policy. The Constitution can not assure wisdom. It is fundamentally an outer limit on conduct.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  17. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    Really we're just going to keep going in circles about whether or not the Supreme Court really is the sole possessor of that power simply because they say they are (the Marbury v. Madison ruling). Many people in this nation would simply disagree. Whereas the Constitution does make the Supreme Court the highest court in the land, the idea that the Supreme Court has the sole power of judicial review is an opinion, albiet one that is currently enforced at gun point. I understand that the Constituion is based off of English Common Law as you've said, and English Common Law allows the power of Judicial Review, but quite frankly that's irrelevant concerning what the Constitution actually says.

    In all actuality the Constitution is an easy read; it's not coded or beyond comprehension and yes, the Supreme Court does make rulings that are a blatant violation of it. Arguing that a man growing wheat on his own property for his own consumption qualifies as interstate commerce and thus subjects him to Federal regulation (Wickard v Filburn) is such an example. No amount of legal abstraction can erase that.

    So I think it's important to understand what one is saying when they claim that a law is "Constitutional" or not. The Supreme Court may possess the power to make something "Constitutional" in the sense that they authorize Federal agents to kill or imprison a citizen for violating it, but it's not "Constitutional" in the sense that it is actually inline with or changes what the Constitution actually says. If, for example, the Supreme Court suddenly decided that the First Amendment doesn't protect a citizen against a law criminalizing speech critical of the government, that law may be "Constitutional" in the sense that the government can at the moment enforce it at the point of a gun, but it's obviously not Constitutional in the wording or intent of the First Amendment.

    So there are actually two meanings of the word "Constitutional", and the point is is that a growing number of people are rejecting the idea that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what really is Constitutional. If enough people wake up to that fact that their Constitutional rights have been abstracted away, there's no reason why the States cant simply assume the power that the Supreme Court has assumed and start to decide for themselves what is "Constitutional". If the power to be the ultimate arbiter of what is "Constitutional" is simply assumed and enforced at the point of a gun (which it is), why not do likewise at the State level? That's what we are seeing now.

    Also, as I've said earlier, I'd like to reiterate the point that Natural Rights, vague and interpretative as they may be, exist entirely independently of the Constitution. Even if for the sake of argument Federal Laws that restrict our rights are backed by the power of a Constitution, that simply means that that Constitution is no more legitimate than those laws. If resisting those laws is "illegal" in that sense, it is no more "illegal" than what happened on the grounds of Lexington and Concord. That's the funny thing about laws; they really only exist as far as armed men have the power to enforce them. So whereas an action against a government's laws may be "illegal", it simply takes only an effective use of force to make it "legal". Call it illegal all you want; if the States have the willpower and resources to enforce these rulings, it will carry the full force of law e.g. it's suddenly "Constitutional".
     
  18. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Under the doctrine of stare decisis the ruling in Marbury is the law. Marbury has also been around for about 210 years, so it's pretty well settled law.

    In your opinion, perhaps. But why do you have the final say on what is or is not constitutional? What about people who disagree with your conclusion that a particular decision of the Supreme Court is "a blatant violation of it"? Why are you correct and they wrong?

    And you decide what the Constitution actually says? What about people who disagree with your opinion about what the Constitution actually says? Why are you correct and they wrong?

    Law (including the Constitution, which is, itself, law) does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in this, the real world, where it is used as a tool by which courts decide the outcome of disputes. Just as a musical score is just marks on paper until it is realized by the playing of it, the law derives its meaning from its application by the courts to real life matters.

    What you're talking about is the notion that "might makes right", but that has fundamentally been discarded in our society. We are a nation of laws, and we abide by laws. (And we at THR do not encourage, condone or advocate violating laws -- thus be advised that any such will not be tolerated here).

    The folks at Lexington and Concord, got away with what they did only because we won.

    No doubt some people do disagree. But so what?

    A court's opinion on matters of law, including whether or not a law is constitutional, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such questions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    You're welcome to live in your alternate universe. In the meantime, here in the real world courts are making rulings and causing things to happen.
     
  19. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    I would ask the same question of the Supreme Court. If their sole reason is stare decisis then their sole reason is really "because we say so". The fact of the matter is, is that they weren't granted the power of judicial review in the Constitution, they just assumed it. Why are they correct and I am wrong, other than they just say so?

    Let's be clear on one thing; the Law only has power so far as it can reach with violence, so apparently might does "make right". For better or worse, that's the nature of the beast. If I place an M16 bolt and FCG in my Ar 15, men with guns will utilize force and either A: kill me or B: take me to prison. So I reject the claim that I am the one advocating violence and you, as a proponent of this system, are not.


    I would also like to point out again that the United Kingdom is a nation of laws also. The actions of the Founders were in effect, illegal. They, as a minority within a larger Empire, chose Natural Law over the laws of their nation. I'm not advocating violence, just a recognition that the very laws of this nation were founded upon a rejection of oppressive laws.

    Opinions are alot more valuable than that if they are shared en masse which, at least according to the OP's news article and others across the nation, seems to be the case.

    Again, this nullification movement and the threat of various state and local law enforcement agencies to impede or arrest Federal agents who attempt to carry our gun control measures, is an ongoing process. Here, in the real world. As has been the case throughout history, that lawyers and officials are pontificating within a courtroom means absoultely nothing past the point that those decisions can be carried with violence. That State and local officials, at least by their words, seem poised to disallow said violence within their borders, essentially voids all of the stare decisis arguments.
     
  20. aeriedad

    aeriedad Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    SC
    Sambo82 presented a very well-reasoned argument and refrained from personal attacks. I happen to agree with his assessment, and your response did little to change that. In my opinion, your veiled personal attack at the end of your reply only indicates Sambo's arguments are particularly strong. I learn a lot from reading THR, but your arrogance is a little off-putting.

    You rightly point out that our society rejects the principle of "might makes right," but then you also tell us we're in an alternate universe for objecting to the Judicial Branch's expansion of Federal power (a.k.a., might makes right). It's true that Common Law informed the Founders during the Constitutional Convention, but many of the Founders were also strong proponents of Natural Law. It's been my observation that most of your opinions here tend to emphasize the Common Law angle and generally overlook Natural Law. I think when most people say something is unconstitutional, they are thinking of the Natural Law aspects of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court (behaving like the pseudo-political body it is) makes decisions more according to Common Law than Natural Law.

    It seems, then, that Common Law tends to encourage the principle of "might makes right," and Natural Law tends to discourage it.
     
  21. jungle

    jungle Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    Miami
    There are a lot of states and the Federales ignoring the law of the land.

    Sanctuary cities ignore immigration law, Feds ignore immigration law, states are making their own drug laws outside federal law, Fed gun running to Mexico, congress has not passed a budget in four years, cities and states continue to ignore Heller and so on.

    A lot of selective enforcement is going on.

    I think we are going to see many more states part with federal law on several key issues in the future.

    I don't think this will get to the point of open warfare, but it is a trend that cannot be denied.

    Jury nullification is also an interesting and important concept, you may want to read a little about it prior to your next jury duty. Chances are, you will never be invited to serve on a jury if you mention it prior to trial.:D

    Right now many cities and states are ignoring federal law, and for that matter so are the feds.

    Never forget, as Chairman Mao was fond of saying, that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. That is still true in every country in the world.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013
  22. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Our legal system is as it is. It represents at this point several hundred years of evolution. It continues to evolve.

    If you, or anyone else, finds our systems unsatisfactory, our system itself provides various means to change it. You're welcome to pursue those avenues of change if you wish.

    The Supreme Court was assigned by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution the judicial power of the United States, and that judicial power, as assigned by the Founding Fathers, extended to cases arising under the Constitution.

    Judicial power involves the deciding of disputes. Doing so in the exercise of judicial power involves applying the law to the matter in controversy to decide the outcome. When the law applicable to the matter involves both statute and the Constitution, exercising judicial power to decide the dispute necessarily involves judicial review. As Mr.Chief Justice Marshall put it in Marbury:

    Judicial review effective flowed naturally from the application of Common Law (the foundation of our legal system) principles in the natural course of the exercise of judicial power assigned to the federal courts by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Judicial review was not pulled out of the air by Marshall. It's application was necessary to the deciding of the case then before the Court.

    As to the reasons you are wrong, there are a couple. First, the Founding Fathers did not assign to you the judicial power of the United States.

    Second, others may disagree with you. What then would make you right and them wrong? Between you and someone who disagrees with you, how will it be decided who is correct. Are you now suggesting that the matter be settled by mutual combat, perhaps?

    Indeed a function of the courts is to decide that sort of disagreement.

    Except you reject the rule of law as it exists under our system and instead would place your judgement above that of our courts and legal processes.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  23. billinms

    billinms Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    sw miss.
    As to the arguement about whether the states or the feds possess 'the' power, one should read the constitution.

    The last article(6 ?) says that the states can petition Congress for a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of said states doing so). In the past, when the feds made a law completely repugnant to the people, the states started a petition for a constitutional convention and when the number of states reached close to the 2/3s required the federal government backed off. I know of at least two times this has been done in the past.

    They had no choice cause if a convention had been called there would have been no limit on what the states could do to the nat'l government, even abolishing or restructuring it or perhaps even rewriting the Constitution itself.

    And from the way things are going with our out of control government it would not surprise me if it happened soon. The states put the federal gov't together and can abolish it if necessary. It also would not surprise me if this were being bandied about, in private, even now.

    BTW if the states petition Congress for a convention, Congress is required to issue the call and each state gets one vote no matter the population.

    So there!
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    It's actually Article V (emphasis added):
    An example of how the system does provide means for change. And an example of how States can politically influence the actions of the federal government.
     
  25. thatwatkinsboy

    thatwatkinsboy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    Okay, I have read many posts on THR in the past, but this one has convinced me to register. In doing so, I have found a couple of things I find to be pertainent to some of the posts in this discussion.
    I would like to direct your attention to a couple of statements made within "THR Forum Rules". #4- "Attack the argument, not the arguer" and my personal favorite, within "A note on FREE SPEECH" "The First Amendment is greatly respected here on The High Road, as are all other Amendments that the Second Amendment defends".
    That being said, I find it odd to be so quick to taboo the idea of defending your rights by use of the Second Amendment. Just food for thought...
    Now to my actual point. I think we have avoided the obvious here. It seems to me that the Supreme Court does, in fact, have the duty to decide whether something is or isn't "Constitutional"... That being said, the constitution does not give them the authority to "make" things "Constitutional". That task was completed by the founding fathers when they drafted the Constitution. Their job is to use the Constitution as a set of guidelines to determine the ruling of any given case, not to use their position to label something "Constitutional" or "Uncontitutional" under their own judgement without respect to the Constitution. In other words, it is their DUTY to make sure that the simple set of rules laid out within the text of the Constitution are followed to the letter, not their right to somehow rule over it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page