Ithaca Council makes no plans to battle FBI (how big of the City of Evil)

Ithaca Journal ^ | Originally published Saturday, May 10, 2003 | By LAUREN BISHOP

[Behind Liberal Lines]

ITHACA -- Those involved in Common Council's passage of a resolution expressing concerns about the USA Patriot Act say they don't plan to engage in a back-and-forth with the FBI, which recently wrote to the city about council's resolution.

"There's no immediate plans to do anything with this, short of having publicized it and encouraging people to continue to let elected officials at all levels of government know how they feel about this," Alderman Daniel Cogan, D-5th Ward, said Thursday.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Nancy Talanian, director of the Massachusetts-based Bill of Rights Defense Committee, said none of the other governments that have passed resolutions designed to protect civil liberties had reported receiving a letter from the FBI.

Maybe because none of the other places are....the City of Evil?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

City of Evil bump

[Soaring Feather]

City of Evil bump

[Zavien Doombringer]

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Those involved in Common Council's passage of a resolution expressing concerns about the USA Patriot Act say they don't plan to engage in a back-and-forth with the FBI, which recently wrote to the city about council's resolution.

Why follow up, when the resolution was nothing more than a feel-good, self-congratulatory publicity stunt?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Maybe I'm wrong, but in all seriousness, I suspect that Ithaca is the only city to get such a letter because it was probably the only city to send a copy of their phoney baloney law to the FBI and expect a response. I would bet Ithaca dollars to donuts that Cogan sent it to them and demanded a response as a PR stunt.

[You Dirty Rats]

Tompkins County Bill of Rights Defense Committee?

This one little county is going to defend the Bill of Rights all by themselves?

I had no idea Tomkins county was so ... formidable.

In fact, I had no idea there was a Tomkins County before today.

[tahiti]

"I would bet Ithaca dollars to donuts that Cogan sent it to them and demanded a response as a PR stunt."

This probably a correct assestment for the reason the FBI did respond.

But the FBI's response is also a PR stunt as well or worst yet and intimidation stunt when they state:

"...including the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibit the FBI from complying with your request for sensitive non-public information."

I would sure like to know what the "Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution" is.

[Modernman]

In pertinent part the Supermacy Clause (Article VI of the Constitution) reads:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Federal laws (assuming they're constitutional) trump state and local laws. So, the FBI is right. The Ithaca City Council has no power to tell the FBI what to do.

[drjimmy]

Tompkins County Bill of Rights Defense Committee? This one little county is going to defend the Bill of Rights all by themselves?
Don't be so cynical. I'm sure they will defend all nine of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

[You Dirty Rats]

And just to show how determined they are, I'm sure they'll take up arms as a militia to show that that do in fact defend all of the amemdments, including the Second.

Then they'll demand the repeal of all welfare state legislation on the grounds that it violates the Ninth Amendment.

I apologize for being so cynical about these principled defenders of the Constitution.

[Scothia]

So far, 103 cities, towns and counties and the state of Hawaii, collectively representing nearly 11 million residents, have passed such resolutions, according to the committee.

Oh, now poor Santa Cruz will have pretense envy.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

:D

[tahiti]

"Federal laws (assuming they're constitutional) trump state and local laws."

A common misconception, with no constitutional basis.

Art I, Sec 9, Cl 17 defines unambigously, federal jurisdiction for federal laws exercised by federal legislation. ("...authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be...")

That is why the "commerce clause" is used so often, carelessly, and abusively to "claim" jurisdiction within the boundaries of the states. (Both a Clinton gun control law and the Violence Against Women Act, during the 1990's, were found to be unconstitutional because both laws tried to establish their jurisdiction within the boundaries of state, using the commerce clause. The Supreme Court did not agree that the founding fathers had intended the commerce clause jurisdiction for those purposes.)

Thus, "...laws of the the United States...," as stated in Art VI, Sec 2, only apply to areas within federal jurisdiction.

Yes, laws enacted with a basis of jurisdiction being "...all treaties made, or which shall be made..." do become "...the supreme law of the land..."

That is why the Clean Air Act and other enviromental protection laws have jurisdiction within the boundaries of the states. (Though such laws still have to be constitutional, in particular concering Amendment V, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.)

These enviromental laws were enacted tied to an international enviromental treaty ratified in the early 1970's. (That is why we constitutionalist are terrified of treaties, for example Kyoto Accords the Senate is considering for ratification at this time.)

The same is true for the Social Security Act. The original SSA was held uncontitutional (Alton RR v Railroad Retirement Assoc).

So, in order to overcome the "slight problem" of jurisdiction, the senate then ratified a treaty with the International Labor Council shortly after that Supreme Court ruling and then enacted the SSA we live under today.

Also, why do you think it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol during the 1920's nationwide? Because there was no constitutional federal jurisdiction for such a law to ban alcohol to be enacted by our federal government. The constitution had to be amended for such laws to have jurisdiction.

In addition, I have anecdotal evidence that federal laws DO NOT trump state laws.

Six years ago, the local federal district attorney told a high school senior class, during a "career day" lecture, that if you are ever pulled into federal court, never, ever declare your plea of guilty or not guilty until you ask the judge to make the federal prosecutor prove jurisdiction.

Once you make a plea of guilty or not guilty, you have voluntarily put yourself under federal jurisdiction. (Though that doesn't mean you cannot retrieve that right to establish jurisdiction if you learn of the question after your plea at a later date.)

He said in almost all cases, the charges will be dropped because of lack of federal jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state, as the constitution so clearly states.

And finally, state and local laws do have to comport with the federal constitution because of Amendment XIV. Prior to that amendment, the federal constitution had no jurisdiction within the boundaries of the sovereign states.

So, more accurately, you should have stated the following:

The federal constitution can trump state and local laws, in particular when there is an issue of individual rights but federal laws cannot trump state and local laws unless federal jurisdiction has been established.

[Modernman]

"That is why the "commerce clause" is used so often, carelessly, and abusively to "claim" jurisdiction within the boundaries of the states."

This goes back to my statement that constitutional federal laws trump local and state laws. If a federal law is not constitutional, then the Supremacy Clause clearly does not apply.

Despite recent rollbacks of the Commerce Clause, it is still an incredibly powerful basis for federal legislation. The laws that were struck down by the court were really stretching the definition of what constitutes "commerce." However, I think you have to acknowledge that, under current interpretation of constitutional law, a law being considered outside of the Commerce Clause is the exception rather than the rule.

A constitutional amendment invoking Prohibition was necessary in the 1920's because there was a very different conception back then amongst the judiciary as to how far federal power extended. Today, a constitutional amendment is not necessary to federally ban certain things- look at federal anti-narcotics laws. It all comes down to judicial interpretation of the commerce clause, unfortunately.

As for the criminal law case, that's not a question of federal jurisdiction- it's a question of personal jurisdiction. You wouldn't be challenging the validity of the federal law in question. Rather, you'd be questioning whether the particular court had jurisdiction over you. That's a complex question, but it isn't really based on the Supremacy Clause but rather Due Process. Following your rationale, Federal criminal laws would be unenforceable. Don't you think defense attorneys would have caught on to this by now?