Posted on 11/09/2015 9:06:44 AM PST by Jim W N
There was some very good analysis and comments on the article posted a few days ago.
Oregon County Passes Measure Directing Sheriff To Block State And Federal Gun Laws
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3356949/posts
I thought this one by DiogenesLamp was very interesting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3356949/posts?page=35#35
Very clever. This is the exact tactic used by states to prevent the return of fugitive slaves. When the Federal courts ruled that states could not be compelled to enforce Federal Laws, they passed laws forbidding state officials from enforcing the fugitive slave laws.
This puts the courts in a funny position. Because this so closely resembles the tactic used to stop the enforcement of fugitive slave laws, if the court says this tactic is invalid, they would have to legally invalidate what happened with the fugitive slaves.
I predict they will be loath to condemn this methodology because of it’s prior history. No one wants to be seen as saying the fugitive slave laws should have been enforced.
Maybe “clarified” your point...
thank you
Currently, they are doing that while we abide by all of them. Something has to change.
It is what the federal government is currently doing with immigration and multiple cities and states with their sanctuary cities.
I would love to see the reaction of the looney left if say a governor of a state suddenly said we will not recognize gay marriage period, nor any federal gun control law we deem unconstitutional and then cite the sanctuary city and immigration laws being ignored as precedent and then just out right ignore it and arrest any federal agent or judge who enters a state and tries to overrule the state decision.
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
Well they have a good start with their own constitution.
First of all, it’s important to know that probably MOST of the opinions of the Supreme Court in their decisions over the last 50-75 years or so have not been based on the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. SCOTUS decisions that are unconstitutional should be considered voidable and should be vacated.
Second of all, there is a serious question about the constitutional intention of the SCOPE of SCOTUS decisions. The Constitution put SCOTUS in place to solve individual “cases and controversies” that have federal jurisdiction. SCOTUS and other federal courts are effective on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. To the extent a subsequent case is similar in fact and question of law, the earlier SCOTUS case may be used as precedent. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants SCOTUS sweeping powers to override or change U.S. or state law, except to enforce the constitutionally enumerated powers granted the feds and prohibited to the states.
Thirdly, the feds have VERY limited power of enforcement upon the states - basically the feds can enforce their constitutionally enumerated powers granted the feds and prohibited to the states. Also, the 14th Amendment grants LIMITED power to the feds EXCLUSIVELY to enforce ONLY the prohibition against state segregation laws and that’s it.
These other federal interferences on state law (school prayer and Bible, abortion, marriage, guns) are outside the constitutional limits on the feds and are therefore void and should be nullified and resisted.
Good one.
Then I’m not sure what Oregon state “gun control laws” the county is having to deal with unless 1) they are state laws that are actually unconstitutional, 2) they are federal laws, acts, or coercion all of which are patently unconstitutional and/or 3) in anticipation of such laws in the future.
Let’s have at it!
We’d see the beginnings of what could very well end up as a rebirth of freedom in America and subsequently around the world (the world follows America, not the other way around despite the Obama’s of the world).
Isn’t this the same principle the “sanctuary cities” are using?
I don’t disagree that this ordinance may give a government official too much discretion. But it is discretion based on the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution is an objective document and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that says it can’t be validly interpreted and applied by states and counties.
The BIG issue in our country is unconstitutional federal acts. The FEDS are the ones who have taken it upon themselves for many decades now, to decide “to pick and choose” what part of the Constitution they will abide by “with no repercussions.”
AND, it is up to the states to reject and nullify unconstitutional federal acts, which by definition are acts of tyranny. Again, the Constitution is the bedrock - it is the law of the land and only legal protection against federal tyranny.
It is the FEDS that have been WAY out of control for decades. Correcting this problem will not always be smooth but again, as long as the U.S. Constitution is held up as the standard against federal acts and the state constitution likewise, we’re on the right track.
That is EXACTLY what the legislators and governors of the states need to do.
BUT, they MUST be ready to go it alone financially because that is the feds trump card.
It is time for a rebirth of INDEPENDENCE from the feds financially at the state level.
Maybe same principle but wrongly applied.
http://www.kwro.com/common/page.php?id=71
Link to Coos County Sheriff Craig Zanni interview on local radio show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.