Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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.
That is all well and good. But the main issue is whether a state can nullify a federal law. It cannot.
I believe the state could have challenged this law in court without the grandstanding.
Seems kind of odd, since the Congress of the United States is defined by, and empowered by the Constitution. The Congress of the United States under the Constitution did not exist until the Constitution was ratified.
If it's outside Congressional authority, then it isn't a valid federal law to start with, and the state is well within it's power under the 10th amendment to disregard it.
Continental Congress sorry.
And who authorized that?
English colonies starting to think of themselves as Americans. Remember "unite or die" slogans? The most dynamic parts of the colonials began to consider themselves Americans years before the first shots were fired. They spoke to the world and to each other as Americans.
No state can ignore a law only it believes to be unconstitutional. 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.
The debates of the Constitutional Convention refer to them as States, not colonies.
"Police powers" seems to be at the root of the contention, as the specific references to Commerce Clause regulations in proposed Montana laws, and Justice Thomas' comments seem to bear out.
But they were not organized as States until directed by the Continental Congress to write constitutions and make it official. This was done mostly after the Declaration which also spoke for the People. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...."
The existed as States, they authorized the Constitutional Convention as States, and they ratified the Constitution that created and empowered the Federal Government as States.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
And they resist a bunch of folks back East tellin' them how to live. Even if they are Republican.
---
Sounds good by me. I wish NC would do the same.
There were no states until after the Continental Congresses just colonies in transition to states. But the American People existed prior to them.
No there was no state involvement in calling for the Constitutional Convention. That was done by the Congress of the United States and in its name only.
Nor did states per se ratify but CONVENTIONS of the American People called within the states as required by the Congress. Had Congress not prevented state legislatures from ratifying then the Union would have been at the mercy of the states which was exactly what Hamilton and Madison wanted to prevent. Thus, this decision was removed from the hands of those legislatures acting for and as states.
The major point of writing the document was to REDUCE the power of the states and INCREASE that of the national government. It is filled with things states cannot do.
In a lot of cases, the states act as collectors for a lot of federal taxes. After the states collect it, they turn it over to the federal government.
Gasoline, tobacco, liquor are about all I can think of. Got more?
And those are the taxes that fund the highway dollars that the federal government loves to hold out as blackmail for the states. And mentioned, in fact, in this very article.
Then why do the records of the debates refer to them as States?
No there was no state involvement in calling for the Constitutional Convention. That was done by the Congress of the United States and in its name only.
A Congress that did not yet exist, because the Constitution that created it had not yet been written or ratified? Nice trick
Nor did states per se ratify but CONVENTIONS of the American People called within the states as required by the Congress. Had Congress not prevented state legislatures from ratifying then the Union would have been at the mercy of the states which was exactly what Hamilton and Madison wanted to prevent. Thus, this decision was removed from the hands of those legislatures acting for and as states.
Again, you speak of the actions of a Congress that did not yet exist.
Congress existed under the Articles of Confederation for years before the call for the Constitutional Convention. Debates at the CC came AFTER the states were in existence so there is no surprise states were mentioned.
Congress was CHANGED to its present form by the CC but there was a Congress before ratification of the Constitution. What are you thinking of?
And Montana will not withhold those taxes either since it receives many other revenues from the fedgov than just highway funds. In fact, it receives $1.50-1.99 back for each dollar of taxes so pursuing this course will cost it big time. This is just grandstanding.
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.