Posted on 02/16/2005 1:26:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
I understand what your point was--read what I said again. If the federal government threatens to take away enough money that Montana becomes a net giver, then there is plenty of motivation for Montana not to cooperate. That's the catch here.
Any legislator believes he can pass a state law "exempting" anyone from the reach of the Constitution is too deluded to reason with.
Any Court decision that is 5-4 or 4-5 is subject to later revision as should be obvious to any observer. And you believe this makes the Constitution a "living" one? This is a simple REALITY no matter how you want to label it. What is the alternative to having the document interpreted by Living Justices? A Dead letter?
I suppose you "ignore" speed limits you believe are inappropriate.
Quite the contrary you are bitching about the Uniformity of the federal law NOT the existence of multiple interpretations of the Constitution.
You don't seem to be capable of understanding the difference between "outrage" which I am not and "scorn" which is what feckless grandstanding by state legislators produces. I am laughing at this folly which will amount to nothing when all is said and done and at the ignorance displayed by its defenders, the NeoNullificationists.
It is not to Montana's advantage to pay more into the federal treasury than it receives rather than receive more than it pays. Actions which will produce such a change can hardly be recommended as good fiscal sense.
Contrary to the accusations of some I share the concern over increased judicial power but refuse to adopt their unconstitutional views of state power over federal law. However, the corrective mechanism for Judicial Activism is already within the Constitution itself and that is the "Exceptions Clause."
Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Thus, Congress could pass laws which it places outside the purview of the Court and has the power to reign in the Court should it desire. But it is too gutless to do this which has produced many of the problems justly complained of.
The Federal Firearms Act of '33 was a repugnant "override" of our RKBA's.
Montana's law would partially restore & correct the Acts infringements, -- to the people of Montana.
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.
Any legislator believes he can pass a state law "exempting" anyone from the reach of the Constitution [federal 'law'] is too deluded to reason with.
Montana's law exempts their people from a repugnant federal law, an obviously unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
It boggles the rational mind that a supposed conservative freeper is supporting that infringement.
The FFA of 33 is currently the law of the Land and Montana can huff and puff all it wants but we don't get to pick and choose which laws are acceptable to us.
Never fear the law will be enforced nullification delusions to the contrary.
Until the Court has ruled any law unconstitutional it is in Full effect nullification delusions to the contrary. As repugnant as the Dred Scott decision was it was still the Law of the Land.
Where have I said I supported or justified the wisdom of ANY particular law? All I have done is point out that there is NO authority outside of the federal court system which can nullify a federal law. THAT is what you object to not my view of any particular law.
As regards the RKBA I support the second amendment far more than most (Americans are not that supportive) and consider most gun control laws ridiculous and of little effect on criminals but I also understand how the Constitution works. This is why I am an NRA member, to protect that Right.
However I oppose any thinking which harkens back to discredited Constitutional theory such as Nullification.
The FFA of 33 is currently the law of the Land and Montana can huff and puff all it wants but we don't get to pick and choose which laws are acceptable to us. Never fear the law will be enforced nullification delusions to the contrary. Until the Court has ruled any law unconstitutional it is in Full effect nullification delusions to the contrary. As repugnant as the Dred Scott decision was it was still the Law of the Land. Where have I said I supported or justified the wisdom of ANY particular law?
Where? -- Just above when you claimed that; "---- The FFA of 33 is currently the law of the Land and Montana can huff and puff all it wants but we don't get to pick and choose which laws are acceptable to us." ---- You've been making essentially that same point here since your first post on the thread.
All I have done is point out that there is NO authority outside of the federal court system which can nullify a federal law.
And I've been pointing out that your view is flawed by the clear words of Article VI, wherein ALL officials, fed/state & local, are bound to support the 2nd Amendment, and all the rest of the US Constitution as the primary "Law of the Land". -- The 2nds clear words trump the 'findings' of Congress that justify the Federal Firearms Act.
The 'Act' is an infringement, and Montana officials are within their powers to write a law opposing that infringement.
THAT is what you object to not my view of any particular law. As regards the RKBA I support the second amendment far more than most (Americans are not that supportive) and consider most gun control laws ridiculous and of little effect on criminals but I also understand how the Constitution works. This is why I am an NRA member, to protect that Right.
Yet here you are, telling Montanan's to go 'huff & puff", and to obey a 'law' repugnant to their Right to Bear Arms.
However I oppose any thinking which harkens back to discredited Constitutional theory such as Nullification.
As I said, -- feel free to rattle your chains..
Hey, suddenly everbody's for States Rights again! Too bad the Bush administration has set such a precedent of peeing all over it.
Well, in principle at least. We seem to have some disagreements over practical application.
States have rights. They're just not supposed to be trying to actually use them.
There is not enough sense in that response to carry this on. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na,na,na,na,na" is not an answer to the point I raised which is strictly constitutional while your position is to believe that you can interpose your interpretation of the Constitution for the articulated Law of the Land which is its product. You can disagree with it but not to the point of acting against it with facing justified legal consequences.
But the Montana action, if meant seriously, shows a fundamentally flawed view of what a constitution is.
And I've been pointing out that your view is flawed by the clear words of Article VI, wherein ALL officials, fed/state & local, are bound to support the 2nd Amendment, and all the rest of the US Constitution as the primary "Law of the Land".
-- The 2nds clear words trump the 'findings' of Congress that justify the Federal Firearms Act.
The 'Act' is an infringement, and Montana officials are within their powers to write a law opposing that infringement.
There is not enough sense in that response to carry this on. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na,na,na,na,na" is not an answer to the point I raised
Typically, when you are losing the debate, you make some silly diversionary "na,na" claim, as above. Be ashamed.
which is strictly constitutional while your position is to believe that you can interpose your interpretation of the Constitution for the articulated Law of the Land which is its product.
Montana legislators are making that Constitutional position. Your claim that they have no such 'right' or power is belied by every principle inherent in our Constitution.
You can disagree with it but not to the point of acting against it with facing justified legal consequences. But the Montana action, if meant seriously, shows a fundamentally flawed view of what a constitution is.
And the Montana legislators will deal with those legal consequences in due course, hopefully under due process.
We are long overdue to test our system in this manner, as evidenced by your factions fundamentally flawed view of what a constitution is, and who wields what powers therein.
-- I suggest you restudy the 10th.
This is no debate merely you repeating your flawed understanding of the meaning of the Constitution that it can be supplanted by a state action. If you were interested in debate you would not repeat the misapplied words of Article VI. The oath to support the Constitution also includes the duty to support laws not found to be in conflict with it and that does not mean one can oppose those laws based solely upon the misunderstanding of crackpots rather than the courts.
Once the Court has spoken that is the Law of the Land it can be changed by amendment or by judicially challenging the decision based upon a new take. Dred Scott and Pleasey were two which were challenged and later made mute through constitutional means which does not include grandstanding state legislatures.
There is nothing in the 10th amendment applicable to this issue. In fact it has been of little impact in constitutional law development. And since the 14th has even less meaning and importance.
That IS the debate. You insist that Montana's legislators have a flawed view, without facing the clear words of the Constitution that prove you wrong.
If you were interested in debate you would not repeat the misapplied words of Article VI. The oath to support the Constitution also includes the duty to support laws not found to be in conflict with it [the FFA conflicts with the 2nd, as you agreed] that does not mean one can oppose those laws based solely upon the misunderstanding of crackpots rather than the courts.
Montana's legislators differ, and they are not "crackpots".
Once the Court has spoken that is the Law of the Land it can be changed by amendment or by judicially challenging the decision based upon a new take.
The 'new take' is being prepared in Montana.
Dred Scott and Pleasey were two which were challenged and later made mute through constitutional means which does not include grandstanding state legislatures.
Montana's legislators are 'grandstanding crackpots'. Elegant argument.
There is nothing in the 10th amendment applicable to this issue.
The 10th limits both fed & state powers, which is the bone of contention here. Your denial is ludicrous.
A "new take" is a court decision not a state legislative action.
The 'new take', a Constitutional challenge long overdue, is being prepared by Montana's rational legislators.
A "new take" is a court decision not a state legislative action.
This is the irrational claim of the socialist faction, true enough.
Why would an NRA member fight Montana's effort?
Yes we do.
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.