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.
No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.
Only if the State or Federal law is legal... that is, Constitutional, itself.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that any law that is hostile to the Constitution, is null and void. So if a state govt or the Fed govt were to pass a law that violated the Constitution, that law would legally cease to exist, by what the Supreme Court has ruled.
So a city passing a law saying the Fed can't (say) infringe the right of the people in the city, to keep and bear arms, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional... since if the Fed were to do that, the Fed's law would go legally belly-up immediately according to the Supreme Court, and there would be no conflict.
No conflict? The feds losing power and there would be no conflict? While I agree with what you said, that line strikes me as awfully sophomoric.
No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.
Is it constitutional for the federal Government to spy on us as is?
Once again, for the slow, If the Federal Government passes expands or makes new rules or laws and you disagree with them then you or an entity effected by the act must file suit in Federal Court and prove to the judiciary that what the Fed is doing is unconstitutional or illegal. No city can pass an act to make federal laws statutes or acts illegal and then enforce the new law. No State can pass a law that does that either.
Ask Montana about that law to exempt locals from federal Firearms laws, ask them how that fared in Court and whether or not the Feds still enforce Federal firearms laws in Montana.
Only if the State or Federal law is legal... that is, Constitutional, itself.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that any law that is hostile to the Constitution, is null and void. So if a state govt or the Fed govt were to pass a law that violated the Constitution, that law would legally cease to exist, by what the Supreme Court has ruled.
So a city passing a law saying the Fed can't (say) infringe the right of the people in the city, to keep and bear arms, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional... since if the Fed were to do that, the Fed's law would go legally belly-up immediately according to the Supreme Court, and there would be no conflict.
No conflict? The feds losing power and there would be no conflict? While I agree with what you said, that line strikes me as awfully sophomoric.
He is also wrong. Anytime a State or local authority believes a Federal law Statute or act is Unconstitutional they must take it to Court. No Supreme Court ruling on another law Statute or act matters. Well except as case law for the current case.
Only if the State or Federal law is legal... that is, Constitutional, itself.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that any law that is hostile to the Constitution, is null and void. So if a state govt or the Fed govt were to pass a law that violated the Constitution, that law would legally cease to exist, by what the Supreme Court has ruled.
So a city passing a law saying the Fed can't (say) infringe the right of the people in the city, to keep and bear arms, it cannot possibly be unconstitutional... since if the Fed were to do that, the Fed's law would go legally belly-up immediately according to the Supreme Court, and there would be no conflict.
No conflict? The feds losing power and there would be no conflict? While I agree with what you said, that line strikes me as awfully sophomoric.
He is also wrong. Anytime a State or local authority believes a Federal law Statute or act is Unconstitutional they must take it to Court. No Supreme Court ruling on another law Statute or act matters. Well except as case law for the current case.
Is it constitutional for the federal Government to spy on us as is?
Once again, for the slow, If the Federal Government passes expands or makes new rules or laws and you disagree with them then you or an entity effected by the act must file suit in Federal Court and prove to the judiciary that what the Fed is doing is unconstitutional or illegal. No city can pass an act to make federal laws statutes or acts illegal and then enforce the new law. No State can pass a law that does that either.
Ask Montana about that law to exempt locals from federal Firearms laws, ask them how that fared in Court and whether or not the Feds still enforce Federal firearms laws in Montana.
Let me give you a breakdown of where federal power comes from:
1. The Constitution that permits the feds to function.
2. The states that permit the Constitution to take its course and control the gov't.
3. The cities that permit the states to allow the Constitution.
4. The people who allow their cities to allow the s to support the Constitution.
Or, that is how it should work. People like you have worked it into their heads that the system is reversed, starting with the Constitution drawing power from the feds.
No I am quite aware how it actually works, the people's recourse is either through the ballot box or the Courts, always has been.
I'm sorry... Are you asking if a state can make an already illegal activity illegal?
No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.
No, what I am asking is if cities/states have the right to pass laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws that the Supreme Court refuses to overturn, yet is voted to be unconstitutional by a majority of a voting districts constituents?
Once again, for the slow, If the Federal Government passes expands or makes new rules or laws and you disagree with them then you or an entity effected by the act must file suit in Federal Court and prove to the judiciary that what the Fed is doing is unconstitutional or illegal. No city can pass an act to make federal laws statutes or acts illegal and then enforce the new law. No State can pass a law that does that either.
Ask Montana about that law to exempt locals from federal Firearms laws, ask them how that fared in Court and whether or not the Feds still enforce Federal firearms laws in Montana.
Let me give you a breakdown of where federal power comes from:
1. The Constitution that permits the feds to function.
2. The states that permit the Constitution to take its course and control the gov't.
3. The cities that permit the states to allow the Constitution.
4. The people who allow their cities to allow the s to support the Constitution.
Or, that is how it should work. People like you have worked it into their heads that the system is reversed, starting with the Constitution drawing power from the feds.
No I am quite aware how it actually works, the people's recourse is either through the ballot box or the Courts, always has been. NO State and no city can supersede Federal laws, statutes or acts. If they do the Federal Government normally will take them to Court have the court suspend the State or local law and then work its way through the Courts. And normally the Federal Government wins.
We the people agreed through our State legislatures to accept the Constitution as the law of the land. It is VERY clear. Unless Congress changes its mind or the Courts overrule Congress or the President Federal Law, statute or act is supreme in this Country.
No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.
No, what I am asking is if cities/states have the right to pass laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws that the Supreme Court refuses to overturn, yet is voted to be unconstitutional by a majority of a voting districts constituents?
Yes they have a right to pass a law like that, unenforceable as it may be, they can still pass it.
If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "Fuck off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go FUCK OFF!"
God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...
If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "Fuck off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go FUCK OFF!"
God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...
Under the new improved Constitution adopted by FDR and the socialists in 1935, that move would be UNconstitutional.
Obama will send Seal Team 7, The Delta Force and the Green Berets and shall teach them a lesson.
.
I'm sorry... Are you asking if a state can make an already illegal activity illegal?
No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.
No, what I am asking is if cities/states have the right to pass laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws that the Supreme Court refuses to overturn, yet is voted to be unconstitutional by a majority of a voting districts constituents?
No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.
No, what I am asking is if cities/states have the right to pass laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws that the Supreme Court refuses to overturn, yet is voted to be unconstitutional by a majority of a voting districts constituents?
I'm not a legal expert but if the Supreme Court has not overturned a law and declared it unconstitutional then by law it would be constitutional and I don't think states can pass laws that overrule federal law.
If a city were to pass a law stating that the federal government loses the ability to monitor its citizens phone calls, records, etc. without a legally signed warrant from a judge, would it be unconstitutional? Or pass laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the 2nd Amendment? IS it unconstitutional for an area lesser than the federal gov't to say, "Fuck off! We will defend the constitution that gives you power, since you won't. Any agent that appears on our doorstep breaking this law shall be treated as a criminal and charged with corruption, as will any official guilty of obtaining illegal records of our citizens. We will demand anybody guilty be extradited immediately to us for prosecution. Have a nice day and go FUCK OFF!"
God I hope my city would be ballsy enough to do that. Maybe I should run for City Council in a few years and propose it myself...
Under the new improved Constitution adopted by FDR and the socialists in 1935, that move would be UNconstitutional.
Obama will send Seal Team 7, The Delta Force and the Green Berets and shall teach them a lesson.
.
Who? My bill would include a clause that after being approved by City Council or the State Legislature, the act would go up on the ballot next November for approval by popular vote. Would Obama start massacring civilians in the streets for doing nothing more than voting?
Yes, any such laws or measures would be un-Constitutional (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).Is This Unconstitutional?
Yes, any such laws or measures would be un-Constitutional (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).Is This Unconstitutional?
No, what I am asking is if cities/states have the right to pass laws nullifying unconstitutional federal laws that the Supreme Court refuses to overturn, yet is voted to be unconstitutional by a majority of a voting districts constituents?
I'm not a legal expert but if the Supreme Court has not overturned a law and declared it unconstitutional then by law it would be constitutional and I don't think states can pass laws that overrule federal law.
And hence lies the problem with your system. The federal gov't is treated as incapable of breaking the Constitution with a Supreme Court that can be rigged. You would have states lose all power versus the feds should the need arise.
By the way, yes, I am a large advocate for States' Rights.
The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere. See id., at 430 (where there is an attempt at "usurpation of a power which the people of a single State cannot give," there can be no question whether the power "has been surrendered" by the people of a single State because "[t]he right never existed"). That the States may not invade the sphere of federal sovereignty is as incontestable.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
i'm not a legal expert but if the supreme court has not overturned a law and declared it unconstitutional then by law it would be constitutional and i don't think states can pass laws that overrule federal law.
and hence lies the problem with your system. The federal gov't is treated as incapable of breaking the constitution with a supreme court that can be rigged. You would have states lose all power versus the feds should the need arise.
By the way, yes, i am a large advocate for states' rights.
if youre an advocate for states rights, then you need to know what rights states have and what rights they do not have, and understand why.
Heres a good primer:
