Replies

Laughs on you Ed, seeing you brought it up, and support giving Congress more power.

Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.

The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.

Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.

READ THE BILL!!!!!!!!!!! THAT STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT GIVES POWER BACK TO THE STATES WHERE IT BELONGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Suppose the California Court of Criminal Appeals opined that the California 'law' prohibiting assault weapons is Constitutional.

If SCOTUS were prohibited from reviewing such cases (H. R. 3893), the entire country would be affected as any State or local government could then safely ignore our 2nd Amendment.

What will you do when SCOTUS agrees with California Court of Criminal Appeals?

Rest assured Ed, I would fight, -- just as I fight bills like HR 3893.
Which leads to the question, - seeing you support HR 3893, a bill that would alter the balance of power, would you obey a rogue legislature like California's?

LOL - Get off this balance of power gig.

Laughs on you Ed, seeing you brought it up, and support giving Congress more power.

Ed, are you claiming that the State of California has the power to prohibit assault weapons?

Suppose the California Court of Criminal Appeals opined that the California 'law' prohibiting assault weapons is Constitutional.

If SCOTUS were prohibited from reviewing such cases (H. R. 3893), the entire country would be affected as any State or local government could then safely ignore our 2nd Amendment.

What will you do when SCOTUS agrees with California Court of Criminal Appeals?

Rest assured Ed, I would fight, -- just as I fight bills like HR 3893.
Which leads to the question, - seeing you support HR 3893, a bill that would alter the balance of power, would you obey a rogue legislature like California's?

LOL - Get off this balance of power gig.

Laughs on you Ed, seeing you brought it up, and support giving Congress more power.

Ed, are you claiming that the State of California has the power to prohibit assault weapons?

HEY RETARD, YOU ARE A WASTE OF MY TIME!!!!!!!
118 posted on 12/23/2004 3:37:30 PM PST by Ed Current

I'll let other readers decide who is 'wasting time', unable to answer basic questions.