Posted on 07/03/2015 8:47:57 AM PDT by B Knotts
Following last week’s controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, voters believe more strongly that individual states should have the right to turn their backs on the federal courts.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
...
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Well said.
That’s worth a blast of “Dixie” on trumpets
Fed govt should not be ruling on state matters. Flawed system
Agree.
It’s a double edged sword
I don’t want to see CA or NY or MA ignoring Heller...
“Fed govt should not be ruling on state matters. Flawed system”
That is really the heart of the problem. Congress doesn’t care when their employees usurp the rights and powers our state government. They hardly even care when their employees attack their own rights and powers.
These employees are after all the very men and women they picked, and thus at some level agree with.
If We are to be bound by the lawless edicts of those oligarchy employees States must be represented in at least their selection. Right now the supreme authority in government is being welded by unexpected Federal employees siting like ‘judges’ on their throne in Washington D.C.
This is a dangerous situation to the existence of any Constitutional republic much less one founded on the consent of the governed. It is untenable when we don’t even have a say.
You can be an øbamite if you want to. But his aversion to it has given the Confederate Battle Flag a whole new modern meaning.
DEFIANCE!
The difference is, you have a choice of fifty states in which to reside. When the Supreme Court makes up constitutional law out of whole cloth, it effects all of us.
*affects
(can’t believe I didn’t catch that)
“It’s a double edged sword
I don’t want to see CA or NY or MA ignoring Heller...”
Don’t worry they will ether way, I for one agree they have a right and duty to as well. Heller was an edict imposing a Federal Constitutional limitation upon State Governments which hold no such limitation. It was just as lawless as the more resent edicts.
If the people of those state’s wanted the right to keep and bare arms they should have put that right into their State Constitution rather than giving their state government the authority to abridge that right.
It is not in general for Washington to protect a people from themselves only the individual’s right to vote their feet which the people of those states nonetheless oversize by the Thousands every year in fleeing their state for more economic and individual liberty offered elsewhere.
Bloomberg gave a bunch of state legislators money to pass stupid new gun laws here in Oregon, so they did, as my state is ruled and reigned by progressive democrats. There are over 10+ counties, maybe more, that have voted via their commissioners to not enforce those new background check laws. Even Lane county where Eugene,OR (peoples republic of Eugene)is, where Peter Defazio(D) rules and University of Oregon resides, voted no to enforcing the new gun laws!
If the states would quit sucking the federal tit then FedGov’s leverage would dissolve.
Governor Piyush “Bobby” Jindal of Louisiana, has decided to back down and accept and administer the new SCOTUS ruling, as part of ‘the law of the land’.
Jindal’s running for President, donchaknow!
And if enough potential jurors do this, it will shut the corrupt judicial system down.
“The principal result of judicial activism is that it has destroyed our system of checks and balances and has destroyed the very judicial system that they act under.
That should poison the whole jury pool.
Let these judges find an impartial jury when the court system is filled to overflowing with judges who show no impartiality at all to the laws they are sworn to uphold.”
The very propose of a jury is to help counteract the effect of a corrupt and lawless Government.
You should tell the judge you will respect the law as written & practiced not as instructed to you by men who by all natural rights should be of no authority to issue such instructions or redefinition.
That you will furthermore tell your fellow jurors of that truth and the need for the law to retain the Constant meaning of the legislators who wrote it less the people become the ruled rather than the rulers.
Odds are i think you may in that act escape jury duty.
The Federal ‘judicial’ system is corrupt being on a jury is the only means by which you may be able to help protect the liberty of your fellow citizens.
The states need to take back their “rights”.
states don’t have rights. only delegated powers for governance. period.
So blue states that wish to restrict individual gun rights should do so if the Supreme Court rules for individual rights? Not a good idea. If you don't like the court decisions, then pressure your congress to impeach criminal judges. That's the constitutional mechanism. You need to threaten your local congressional representative that you will air their dirty laundry if they don't cooperate.
On this 4 of July Celebrate States Right’s and Independence, Federalism.
governments at every level do not have rights. only delegated powers. 10th amendment reserves the powers not delegated to the fed, to the states and the people.
A sincere U.S. Congress would undertake the task of clearly defining the real, original meaning and intent of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment has been used and abused repeatedly by the supremes in various unconstitutional rulings. Finding sincerity in the U.S. Congress, however, is not something that’s likely to occur.
all my US flags are now upside down. Union Jack is on the bottom. didn’t get an “Appeal to heaven” flag yet. which is my new (original) US G. Washington’s naval flag.
The feds don’t even comply with their own laws (like immigration), why should anyone else?
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.