Posted on 02/16/2005 1:26:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
HELENA -- Lawmakers in the Montana House of Representatives collectively thumbed their noses at the federal government Monday by approving two bills exempting guns from federal regulations and driver's licenses from national standardization requirements.
The bills by Reps. Diane Rice, R-Harrison, and Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, do different things but are driven by the same concern: the erosion of personal liberties by the federal government. Koopman said Monday his gun bill, House Bill 366, would inspire a home-grown industry of gun-makers who produce firearms to be sold in Montana. It also sends a message reaffirming states' rights.
"In that regard, this bill really has positive consequences, I believe, beyond the firearms industry itself," he said.
Rice is sponsoring HB 304, which would prevent the state from cooperating with the federal government in establishing nationwide standards for noncommercial driver's licenses.
Federal standards, she said, amount to a national ID card. Critics fear that such standards will lead to the government tracking its citizens.
There was virtually no debate about the bill before lawmakers voted 94-6 to pass it, with a third and final vote expected today.
Congress last year required nationwide standards for driver's licenses, fearing terrorists were using the nation's cornucopia of license styles to skirt security at airports.
Montana already meets those standards, according to Dean Roberts of the motor vehicle division of the Montana Department of Justice.
But there are now two proposals before Congress that go beyond what the state puts on its driver's licenses. They would, for example, mandate states produce licenses resistant to tampering and counterfeiting.
If Montana ignores those standards -- as the bill requires -- then residents here wouldn't be able to use the driver's licenses as a form of ID when boarding commercial airplanes, or use them to pass any sort of federal-required identification.
"To the average citizen, that means you are not going to get on an airplane," Roberts said.
The bill was limited to noncommercial licenses because failure to comply with commercial license requirements would mean losing federal highway funds, he said.
It also makes it illegal to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, which currently isn't prohibited under state law.
Koopman's HB 366 would exempt guns made in Montana from federal regulation under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, as long as the guns remain inside the state.
Rep. Tim Dowell, D-Kalispell, criticized it as aiding terrorism. He noted that law enforcement officers used gun regulations to link the Washington D.C.-area sniper shootings.
Terrorists "can come to Montana, they can buy one of these weapons, go on a reign of terror, and there would be no way to track them down," he said.
He also questioned the logic of the state exempting itself from federal law.
"That's pretty cool, maybe we should say we aren't subject to the income tax," he said.
Dowell's complaints were dismissed as "crazy emotionalism" by Rep. Ed Butcher, R-Winifred. In the end, 73 lawmakers voted to move the bill forward, and afterward there was scattered applause on the House floor.
A third and final vote is expect today. If both bills pass their third vote, then they will move on to the Senate.
I never cry for help or protection from loons. Abuse to your heart's content. It is undoubtably the highlight of your day.
Not necessarily. If you're not getting any revenue from the feds, why not just keep what you collect? If you're collecting a dollar and then only getting, say, .50 cents back because you've lost your highway funds, why not just keep the dollar?
How come you keep posting to a thread that's officially closed?
Just so you know, it's interstate commerce if you use Federal reserve notes to pay for it, or if any part of it crosses any state line.
Don't believe me? You might want to look up some court decisions.
This will go nowhere since no state can void a federal law.
States have no legal authority over the Federal government and never did.
Article VI is clear. The Constitution & its Amendments [including the 2nd] is our supreme Law of the Land, [not to be infringed] and federal firearms 'laws' are clearly infringements.
Furthermore, ALL officials, Fed/State or local, are bound by oath to support the Constitution as written.
The Montana bill in question would support the 2nd.
The Federal Firearms Act of '33 is a null & void unconstitutional 'law', that the people of Montana have the right to ignore within the boundaries of their State.
-- The Feds can't jail them all.
There is no "right" of a criminal to possess firearms nor one of mentally ill people.
Typically, you avoid the facts I outlined to make a point not in contention. Silly ploy.
Nor of those who would and have picked up arms against the USA. The second and the first are not Absolutes allowing everyone to possess any destructive device or say anything at anytime.
Which has nothing to do with the federal 'law' Montanans see as infringements, as is within the peoples power..
The People of Montana nor those of any other state cannot decide which federal laws are worthy of their acceptance.
Bull. That's simply the way you and a bunch of socialists want the Constitution interpreted.
Such a decision is out of their hands unless the amendment process is followed.
Weird idea, claiming that unconstitutional federal 'laws' can only be repealed by Amendments? Where did you come up with that howler?
Maybe you see some hitherto unknown phrase in the Constitution which says "Oh, any law can be ignored if it fails to pass your personal constitutional litmus test."
Article VI makes every official, at any level, bound to honor our Constitution as they read it, and if it fails to pass their "personal constitutional litmus test", they should do more than just ignore it.. It is their duty to actively oppose it it as best they can.
Any law believed to be unconstitutional can only be challenged through the courts whether you like it or not.
Not true. If the courts refuse to redress our grievances, States have the power to do just as Montana is doing.
No state can ignore a law only it believes to be unconstitutional.
You're simply opining. All State officials are duty bound to honor our Constitution.
Montana officials rightly see that the Feds are infringing on the 2nd. This is all the 'authorization' they need.
The tenth amendment only involves matters such as state and local health regulations, police powers or issues not covered by federal law. It can do nothing in conflict with those laws. All in all it is one of the least used amendments in the development of constitutional law and appears to be essentially meaningless since the passage of the 14th. My view is that it was a sop to the slavers to mitigate their fear of fed involvement with their slaves.
View it as you like. The 10th does not stop States from challenging Federal 'law'.
State officials do swear and oath to defend the Constitution and what that document means is not left to their individual whims.
Your supposition is noted, and rejected as having no basis in constitutional fact.
George Wallace had no constitutional right to prevent Black students from attending state colleges not matter what delusion he was laboring under at the time. A delusion which passed when he recanted and for which he was forgiven. HE was man enough to admit he was wrong.
Who said he did? -- Another odd diversion.
Wallace did have the option of closing all his States schools, pending State legislative action on the matter.
Montana has every right to challenge any fedlaw it wishes but it only has ONE legitimate venue to do so and that is through the courts. States do this all the time as was anticipated by our Founders.
The courts are only a States first option.
Some powers are prohibited to States, as is noted in the 10th.. Show me where they only have "ONE legitimate venue to "challenge any fedlaw" in the balance of our Constitution.
Awww gee, it appears you've run him off.. -- I protest..
Yeah, I'm just another "Socialist" like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Marshall the men who knew most about the meaning of the document. I will continue to base my ideas about the document on those men's understandings meanwhile you can continue to follow whatever bunch of crackpots you wish.
Andrew Jackson, another of those "socialists" you whine about, told the leaders of the last nullification movement in South Carolina, his birth state, that he would hang any offering force against the federal government attempting any nullification. This silly idea was put to rest when they fell all over themselves to reassure old Hickory that they had a change of heart. Apparently you are ignorant of his bit of history.
Federal law cannot be voided by any state action and this point is not in dispute except among the crackpots and their followers. So there is no issue here.
Federal laws can be repealed by other federal laws but those found constitutional by the Court have only one other means of changing, amendment. No state action has any significance wrt ANY law found constitutional by the Court. Massachusetts could not make slavery illegal in the US by any means but changing the Constitution. Thus, what Montanans see as "infringements" of federal law is irrelevent and will have no impact on any legal proceeding. Those betting on the contrary will lose. But feel free to try it, it's your money.
States losing court cases wrt constitutionality have ONE option: to convince enough other states to amend the constitution. Until then they are stuck with it. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about our Constitution understands that. Those who have no understanding of the meaning of the phrase "...the supreme Law of the Land..." can delude themselves all they wish but Reality will intrude soon enough. Meanwhile those who do understand will get a few good laughs at the loons as they Nullify any hope of respect from non-Loons.
The point was that Montana is one of the states which RECEIVES from 50 to 100% MORE in taxes than it pays. So there is no leverage here.
There is ONE interpretation of the Constitution in effect at any particular time. That is the one given approval by the Court as devised in the Constitution though the Court can change its mind and has. No statement out of LoonyTunesville can change Article III, Section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..." So you think the Founders were just kidding about this idea of the Law of the Land?
No one has said States could not "challenge" federal law in some vague form just not through state laws contrary to fedlaw. Unfortunately you don't understand that they have ONLY one legal means of challenging it, the Judicial system. They have NO other legal means of doing so through legislation.
The whole meaning of the constitution makes the idea of multiple interpretations of Constitutionality an absurdity of the highest degree. If such an intrepretation were correct then we would essentially be without a constitution.
I gave you merely one example of state nullifications which have been repeatedly and universally swatted down. Wallace, Faubus etc tried to "nullify" law based on their erroneous interpretations of the Constitution. I don't know if the former had the power to close the state schools to avoid desegregation either as you believe since that would deprive Alabama's citizens of the protection of the rule of law.
Courts are the only LEGAL means of changing laws outside of Congressional action. Presumably you meant the 10th reserved not "prohibited" rights of the states but ONLY when these rights did not conflict with the Constitution. States can challenge fedlaw through the courts or propaganda campaigns or extra legal means but there is no way a state law can override a federal law. It is called the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section I, paragraph 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therof" ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land: and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, ANY THING in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Since there is ONE source of determining constitutionality (Article III, Section 2, paragraph 1) this means state determinations of constitutionality are meaningless when in conflict with fedlaw.
For you I have returned. My mom taught me to be polite.
What method would a state use to challenge a federal law other than passing a state law contrary to it to provide a test case to bring before the court? Can you provide an example of any state challenging federal law by any other means?
Yeah, I'm just another "Socialist" like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Marshall the men who knew most about the meaning of the document. I will continue to base my ideas about the document on those men's understandings meanwhile you can continue to follow whatever bunch of crackpots you wish.
Here's one 'crackpot' opinion I base my argument on:
"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned;
and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Andrew Jackson, another of those "socialists" you whine about, told the leaders of the last nullification movement in South Carolina, his birth state, that he would hang any offering force against the federal government attempting any nullification. This silly idea was put to rest when they fell all over themselves to reassure old Hickory that they had a change of heart. Apparently you are ignorant of his bit of history.
"In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act which, Jackson signed into law. The act was challenged successfully by the Cherokee Nation in 1832 in the US Supreme Court as Worcester v. Georgia, in 1832.
Despite the Supreme Court decision, Jackson took no action to uphold the Court verdict, and in fact would openly defy it; he was quoted as saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!".
As the court has no executive powers to enforce its decisions, Jackson's executive disregard of the court, marked a time when the Judicial branch of government was very weak."
The State of Montana can use the same precedent as Jackson. -- Civil disobedience, - on a State wide basis, would work to end federal RKBA infringements.
Federal law cannot be voided by any state action and this point is not in dispute except among the crackpots and their followers. So there is no issue here.
Yep, that's a socialist mantra all right. You've drunk their Kool-Aid.
Federal laws can be repealed by other federal laws but those found constitutional by the Court have only one other means of changing, amendment. No state action has any significance wrt ANY law found constitutional by the Court.
"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned;
and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank."
Massachusetts could not make slavery illegal in the US by any means but changing the Constitution.
Montanans are not trying to make anything 'illegal'. Just the reverse in fact.
Thus, what Montanans see as "infringements" of federal law
Weird reasoning. - Montanans see the fed gun 'law' as an infringement of their RKBA's..
is irrelevent and will have no impact on any legal proceeding. Those betting on the contrary will lose. But feel free to try it, it's your money. States losing court cases wrt constitutionality have ONE option: convince enough other states to amend the constitution.
Are you saying that Montana must convince enough other states to amend the constitution to regain their RKBA's? Loony idea.
Until then they are stuck with it. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about our Constitution understands that. Those who have no understanding of the meaning of the phrase "...the supreme Law of the Land..." can delude themselves all they wish but Reality will intrude soon enough. Meanwhile those who do understand will get a few good laughs at the loons as they Nullify any hope of respect from non-Loons.
Dream on that you are a "non-loon".
Determination of constitutionality is by the Supreme Court. Challenges to law can be heard in subordinate courts which can find against the law but until the USSC has ruled all such rulings are not truly final.
Jackson certainly did say that and since it came at a time that the court was weak as the quote mentioned nothing was done to uphold the Court which was a failure to abide by the law on Jackson's part. Montana is not going to get away with such things though and Bush will not let it.
Nope pure Constitutionalism which is the furtherest thing from socialism though you probably have as limited an understanding as to what the latter is as the former.
USSC is the final arbiter of whether a law is "pursuant to" not a state legislature.
Montana still has the RTKABA. Nothing took it away.
State not offhand but the Partial Birth Abortion law enacted a couple of years ago was immediately squashed.
It's still going to end up in court to get settled, so what's the problem? You don't like how they're going about doing it, but don't seem to know how else they would go about it.
No state can ignore a law only it believes to be unconstitutional.
You're simply opining. All State officials are duty bound to honor our Constitution.
Montana officials rightly see that the Feds are infringing on the 2nd. This is all the 'authorization' they need.
Montana has every right to challenge any fedlaw it wishes but it only has ONE legitimate venue to do so and that is through the courts. States do this all the time as was anticipated by our Founders.
The courts are only a States first option.
Some powers are prohibited to States, as is noted in the 10th.. Show me where they only have "ONE legitimate venue to "challenge any fedlaw" in the balance of our Constitution.
There is ONE interpretation of the Constitution in effect at any particular time.
Another 'official decree' you've pulled out of a hat? Where do you get this stuff?
That is the one given approval by the Court as devised in the Constitution though the Court can change its mind and has.
Yep, that's the 'living constitution' BS, used by socialists. Good grief.
No statement out of LoonyTunesville can change Article III, Section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,..."
Read my last post, where I quoted a famous jurist that agreed that the USSC must abide by the words & principles of the Constitution.
So you think the Founders were just kidding about this idea of the Law of the Land?
You just claimed that the "Court can change its mind and has"; about what the "Law of the Land" might be. -- That's loonytune thinking to me.
No one has said States could not "challenge" federal law in some vague form just not through state laws contrary to fedlaw. Unfortunately you don't understand that they have ONLY one legal means of challenging it, the Judicial system. They have NO other legal means of doing so through legislation.
Not true. States can simply ignore, and refuse to enforce fed laws that are repugnant to constitutional principles. -- The burden is on the Feds to prove the constitutionality of the infringement.
The whole meaning of the constitution makes the idea of multiple interpretations of Constitutionality an absurdity of the highest degree. If such an intrepretation were correct then we would essentially be without a constitution.
Yep, and essentially, that is exactly the way we are operating this Republic today. You socialists have taken over all levels of government, and are using the "living constitution" theory to enact damn near any 'law' you choose.
-- Montana is getting wise, and more States will follow..
Bet on it.
I gave you merely one example of state nullifications which have been repeatedly and universally swatted down. Wallace, Faubus etc tried to "nullify" law based on their erroneous interpretations of the Constitution. I don't know if the former had the power to close the state schools to avoid desegregation either as you believe since that would deprive Alabama's citizens of the protection of the rule of law.
Courts are the only LEGAL means of changing laws outside of Congressional action.
Montana's congress has acted, and you are outraged. Typical socialist reaction.
Presumably you meant the 10th reserved not "prohibited" rights of the states but ONLY when these rights did not conflict with the Constitution. States can challenge fedlaw through the courts or propaganda campaigns or extra legal means but there is no way a state law can override a federal law.
The FFA of '33 was an "override" of our RKBA's. Montana's law would restore the RKBA's to the people of Montana.
It is called the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section I, paragraph 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance therof" ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land: and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, ANY THING in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Since there is ONE source of determining constitutionality..
Wrong, -- Laws repugnant to the principles of the US Constitution can be considered null & void, and ignored at any level of government in the USA; -- the burden of constitutional proof then falls to the repugnant 'law'makers.
(Article III, Section 2, paragraph 1) this means state determinations of constitutionality are meaningless when in conflict with fedlaw.
Feel free to chant that mantra & rattle your chains.
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
For you I have returned. My mom taught me to be polite
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Montana still has the RTKABA. Nothing took it away
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.