Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BTW folks - to forcibly impede a federal agent in the exercise of his duties - is a crime, punishable by up to 20 years.
18 USC § 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
I sincerely hope as many Texan dufuses as possible try this, and I'll enjoy watching them rounded up and sent to prison.
Its not your job to determine a laws Constitutionality dick wipe.
According to the tenth amendment i have more authority to determine a laws constitutionality than the supreme court does. THINK
According to the 10th amendment, states can only make laws that aren't in conflict with federal law.
This is music to the ears of all patriots. The second and tenth amendments make it very clear the feds have no authority in gun control. IT'S A STATE ISSUE!!
Eleven States To Jail Feds Who Violate The 2nd Amendment | _
Posted on January 18, 2013
Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Tennesee, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona and Wyoming have proposed legislation to jail federal officials who violate the second amendment.
The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is a state-level bill that renders all federal gun laws, regulations, rules, acts, orders, etc null and void within the borders of the state.
The Firearms Freedom Act declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause, with firearms as the object.
It seems as if conservatives just won't be happy until there's an armed confrontation between one or more of the states and the federal gov't.
Correct.
Supremacy Clause | LII / Legal Information Institute.
However, to take that definition at face value is not simple.
As with any law, there is always room for interpretation and even challenge.
Just because the Supremacy Clause exists, does not mean a State can make law that challenges federal authority.
The Second Amendment has now been incorporated into the 14th. amendment by the McDonald case, meaning the second amendment is now a federal responsiblity no longer the states. I think it is the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated?
The Second Amendment has now been incorporated into the 14th. amendment by the McDonald case, meaning the second amendment is now a federal responsiblity no longer the states. I think it is the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated?
This is music to the ears of all patriots. The second and tenth amendments make it very clear the feds have no authority in gun control. IT'S A STATE ISSUE!!
Eleven States To Jail Feds Who Violate The 2nd Amendment | _
Posted on January 18, 2013
Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Tennesee, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona and Wyoming have proposed legislation to jail federal officials who violate the second amendment.
The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act is a state-level bill that renders all federal gun laws, regulations, rules, acts, orders, etc null and void within the borders of the state.
The Firearms Freedom Act declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states. The FFA is primarily a Tenth Amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause, with firearms as the object.
It seems as if conservatives just won't be happy until there's an armed confrontation between one or more of the states and the federal gov't.
Correct.
Supremacy Clause | LII / Legal Information Institute.
However, to take that definition at face value is not simple.
As with any law, there is always room for interpretation and even challenge.
Just because the Supremacy Clause exists, does not mean a State can make law that challenges federal authority.
Of course the states can, you idiot. Thanks to the supremacy clause the states have the authority to declare any federal law in violation of the federal constitution. The states don't do it cuz they're cowards. Hopefully that is changing.
The Second Amendment has now been incorporated into the 14th. amendment by the McDonald case, meaning the second amendment is now a federal responsiblity no longer the states. I think it is the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated?
Where does the Supreme court get the authority to change the constitution.???
You want to change the constitution you have to go thru the amending process and get 3/4 of the states to accept it.
According to the tenth amendment i have more authority to determine a laws constitutionality than the supreme court does. THINK
According to the 10th amendment, states can only make laws that aren't in conflict with federal law.
Correct.
Supremacy Clause | LII / Legal Information Institute.
However, to take that definition at face value is not simple.
As with any law, there is always room for interpretation and even challenge.
Just because the Supremacy Clause exists, does not mean a State can make law that challenges federal authority. In other words, a carefully worded law can be legally enacted and appear on the surface that it may be in conflict with federal law, but is actually not.
For example, The Federal Wire Act of 1961 prohibited the use of communication wire lines to place wagers of any kind. The fact that betting on horse racing via the internet is legal in states where Pari-Mutuel wagering is legal in the state from where the bet is sent to the state taking the bet is evident in that the Act did not address specifically the wagering on horse racing. Essentially the Act covered wagering on "sporting contests".
Also. the Wire Act specifically mentions "common carriers". As of the present, internet service providers are NOT considered "common carriers".
Sen John Kyl (R-AZ) introduced a bill that would make ALL internet wagering of any kind ILLEGAL in the United States. That bill did not make it past committee.
The point here is where the US federal government can make law which then subjects that law to the supremacy clause, in certain instances such a law is open to interpretation.
The Court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.
We are unanimously of opinion that the law passed by the Legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States is unconstitutional and void.
McCulloch v. Maryland
[
As already correctly noted in other threads on the same topic, the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce that effects the economy of the Nation as a whole, even if that commerce is intrastate only. See: Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).
By that interpretation, the feds can do anything and that's why it's wrong. Commerce Clause gives congress power to regulate commerce on the extent such regulation is consistent with the listed powers of congress in article 1 section 8. READ
The Second Amendment has now been incorporated into the 14th. amendment by the McDonald case, meaning the second amendment is now a federal responsiblity no longer the states. I think it is the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated?
Where does the Supreme court get the authority to change the constitution.???
You want to change the constitution you have to go thru the amending process and get 3/4 of the states to accept it.
BTW folks - to forcibly impede a federal agent in the exercise of his duties - is a crime, punishable by up to 20 years.
18 USC § 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
I sincerely hope as many Texan dufuses as possible try this, and I'll enjoy watching them rounded up and sent to prison.
The Second Amendment has now been incorporated into the 14th. amendment by the McDonald case, meaning the second amendment is now a federal responsiblity no longer the states. I think it is the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated?
Where does the Supreme court get the authority to change the constitution.???
You want to change the constitution you have to go thru the amending process and get 3/4 of the states to accept it.
The Second Amendment has now been incorporated into the 14th. amendment by the McDonald case, meaning the second amendment is now a federal responsiblity no longer the states. I think it is the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated?
Where does the Supreme court get the authority to change the constitution.???
You want to change the constitution you have to go thru the amending process and get 3/4 of the states to accept it.
The Supreme Court doesnt change the Constitution, the doctrine of judicial review authorized the Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution means, and determine whether or not a given law is offensive to the Constitution.
All perceptions of the Constitution, including conservative originalism or strict constructionism are interpretations of the Constitution; the Framers fully intended and expected laws passed by Congress be subject to judicial review, and the Constitution subject to interpretation as a part of the process of judicial review.
Where does the Supreme court get the authority to change the constitution.???
You want to change the constitution you have to go thru the amending process and get 3/4 of the states to accept it.
The Supreme Court doesnt change the Constitution, the doctrine of judicial review authorized the Supreme Court to interpret what the Constitution means, and determine whether or not a given law is offensive to the Constitution.
All perceptions of the Constitution, including conservative originalism or strict constructionism are interpretations of the Constitution; the Framers fully intended and expected laws passed by Congress be subject to judicial review, and the Constitution subject to interpretation as a part of the process of judicial review.
Only problem was the framers didn't give the Court the power of judicial review in the constituition, the court interpreted the constitution that they were given this power.
The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.
After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. In fact, the word Constitution in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Courts jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.
The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review
This is music to the ears of all patriots. The second and tenth amendments make it very clear the feds have no authority in gun control. IT'S A STATE ISSUE!!
Really? Then why did every single House Republican but one vote for the gun free school zones act in 1990? Why did a Republican President sign it into law? Is it because Republicans hate America?
