Is This Unconstitutional?

[Mojo2]

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...

American political history is defined by three great crises. The first crisis was the American Revolution, which was declared on July 4, 1776 but whose roots can be traced back at least to 1763. That period of crisis ended with the election of Thomas Jefferson as president in what has become known as the “Revolution of 1800.”

The second crisis was the crisis over slavery that culminated in the Civil War. While the Founders had opposed slavery in principle, but had been forced to compromise with the institution in practice for the sake of the Union, the rise of the “positive good” school of slavery in the South marked a turn away from the Founders’ principles, and their practice. In response, Abraham Lincoln explained and defended the Founder’s approach.

The third great crisis, which continues today, is the challenge of Progressivism, a movement founded by Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and others.

The Progressives rejected the Founders’ principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights.

Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders’ intent.

In order to understand fully the previous crises, and to be able to respond well to the current crisis, we must understand the causes of America.

America has four causes—a material cause: primarily the land and the people; an efficient cause: the Founding Founders who led the Revolution in the name of the American people; a formal cause: the Constitution, especially the structure of government it establishes; and a final cause: the principles of free government outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

With this background, we can answer the question: Was the American Founding revolutionary or conservative? In fact it was both: It sought to conserve the oldest and highest law, which according to the Declaration of Independence is “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Founders compared the natural law to the conventional law under which they lived, and—as described so eloquently and succinctly in the Declaration of Independence—determined that a revolution was justified in the name of this higher law.

Constitution 101 - Part 1 - Lecture - Hillsdale College Online Courses

 

[AntiParty]

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...

So your city will ban "Angry Birds" and "CandyCrush"......and google, and yahoo and ...etc

You will look like the Big Government in your attempt to end Big Government.

Take the more educated road and find out why Corporations have such a big pull on our Politicians. It's called CITIZENS UNITED and THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
Please..........please study these.......

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

So the Feds can still break the Constitution, even though a city/state specifically passed legislation concerning said breaches? And once the city/state finds out? Great for federal PR.

Breaking- but Unsurprising- News! Feds break Constitutional and Local law, telling the voters there that their votes are actually worthless to them!

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

 

[candycorn]

Yes they have a right to pass a law like that, unenforceable as it may be, they can still pass it.

So the Feds can still break the Constitution, even though a city/state specifically passed legislation concerning said breaches? And once the city/state finds out? Great for federal PR.

Breaking- but Unsurprising- News! Feds break Constitutional and Local law, telling the voters there that their votes are actually worthless to them!

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

Yeah but....

I'm just getting you prepared for the upcoming attempt to go into the hypothetical...

 

[Contumacious]

Yes they have a right to pass a law like that, unenforceable as it may be, they can still pass it.

So the Feds can still break the Constitution, even though a city/state specifically passed legislation concerning said breaches? And once the city/state finds out? Great for federal PR.

Breaking- but Unsurprising- News! Feds break Constitutional and Local law, telling the voters there that their votes are actually worthless to them!

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

Exactly.

FDR's 1935 socialist coup d'etat established once and for all that the federal government's powers have no limits .

.

 

[BlindBoo]

So the Feds can still break the Constitution, even though a city/state specifically passed legislation concerning said breaches? And once the city/state finds out? Great for federal PR.

Breaking- but Unsurprising- News! Feds break Constitutional and Local law, telling the voters there that their votes are actually worthless to them!

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

Exactly.

FDR's 1935 socialist coup d'etat established once and for all that the federal government's powers have no limits .

.

The issues of secession and nullification have been settled now for 150 years.

 

[Contumacious]

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

Exactly.

FDR's 1935 socialist coup d'etat established once and for all that the federal government's powers have no limits .

.

The issues of secession and nullification have been settled now for 150 years.

Only in your mind and those who are willing to trade security for liberty.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

Exactly.

FDR's 1935 socialist coup d'etat established once and for all that the federal government's powers have no limits .

.

The issues of secession and nullification have been settled now for 150 years.

Only in your mind and those who are willing to trade security for liberty.

.

30 years before Lincoln settled the secession issue, Congress authorized the President to use military force against a state to enforce federal tariffs.

 

[CorvusRexus]

Yes they have a right to pass a law like that, unenforceable as it may be, they can still pass it.

So the Feds can still break the Constitution, even though a city/state specifically passed legislation concerning said breaches? And once the city/state finds out? Great for federal PR.

Breaking- but Unsurprising- News! Feds break Constitutional and Local law, telling the voters there that their votes are actually worthless to them!

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

But what of the voters? As the government draws its power directly from their consent to be ruled, surely it is Constitutional for them to petition the government peacefully through the city level, where the government can more tend the needs of the people, as opposed to the feds. The Constitution does grant the people the right to peacefully petition the government, and this is one such avenue the people can pursue. A city is more likely to listen to individuals more than a state, and a state is more likely to listen to a city, and the feds are more likely to listen to a state. Thus, if the voters vote a law to be unconstitutional in their eyes, the law is, at least for that area.

 

[CorvusRexus]

The issues of secession and nullification have been settled now for 150 years.

Only in your mind and those who are willing to trade security for liberty.

.

30 years before Lincoln settled the secession issue, Congress authorized the President to use military force against a state to enforce federal tariffs.

So today the feds have the right to attack and murder civilians for exercising their unalienable right to vote? Yet we the people are not allowed to express our discontent at unconstitutional laws? If a voting body votes it unconstitutional, what right does the federal level have to massacre them for it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So the Feds can still break the Constitution, even though a city/state specifically passed legislation concerning said breaches? And once the city/state finds out? Great for federal PR.

Breaking- but Unsurprising- News! Feds break Constitutional and Local law, telling the voters there that their votes are actually worthless to them!

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

But what of the voters? As the government draws its power directly from their consent to be ruled, surely it is Constitutional for them to petition the government peacefully through the city level, where the government can more tend the needs of the people, as opposed to the feds. The Constitution does grant the people the right to peacefully petition the government, and this is one such avenue the people can pursue. A city is more likely to listen to individuals more than a state, and a state is more likely to listen to a city, and the feds are more likely to listen to a state. Thus, if the voters vote a law to be unconstitutional in their eyes, the law is, at least for that area.

There are 50 States and thousands of cities. You think one city amongst thousands should have the power to decide for the rest of the Country what is right?

I know I disagree with just about every ordinance and law out of San Francisco to name JUST one liberal city.

We have a process to determine if laws and acts of Congress or the President or agencies of the Federal Government are legal and Constitutional and it does not include trying to nullify them at a local level. In fact that approach is specifically unconstitutional itself.

 

[CorvusRexus]

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

But what of the voters? As the government draws its power directly from their consent to be ruled, surely it is Constitutional for them to petition the government peacefully through the city level, where the government can more tend the needs of the people, as opposed to the feds. The Constitution does grant the people the right to peacefully petition the government, and this is one such avenue the people can pursue. A city is more likely to listen to individuals more than a state, and a state is more likely to listen to a city, and the feds are more likely to listen to a state. Thus, if the voters vote a law to be unconstitutional in their eyes, the law is, at least for that area.

There are 50 States and thousands of cities. You think one city amongst thousands should have the power to decide for the rest of the Country what is right?

I know I disagree with just about every ordinance and law out of San Francisco to name JUST one liberal city.

We have a process to determine if laws and acts of Congress or the President or agencies of the Federal Government are legal and Constitutional and it does not include trying to nullify them at a local level. In fact that approach is specifically unconstitutional itself.

Yet I never said that one city can decide policy for the rest. rather, if a majority of voting citizens in an area vote down a bill they deem to be unconstitutional, why does the gov't have to shove it down their throats? They believe it to be unconstitutional. Will you send military forces in to "keep the peace" and arrest people for voting? Look at Russia and Crimea. No doubt many of you arguing against me condemned Russia for doing exactly what some on your side seem to be suggesting!
BTW, one city already does decide policy for the rest of the nation. It is called Washington D.C.

 

[BlindBoo]

Only in your mind and those who are willing to trade security for liberty.

.

30 years before Lincoln settled the secession issue, Congress authorized the President to use military force against a state to enforce federal tariffs.

So today the feds have the right to attack and murder civilians for exercising their unalienable right to vote? Yet we the people are not allowed to express our discontent at unconstitutional laws? If a voting body votes it unconstitutional, what right does the federal level have to massacre them for it?

Voting is constitutional. So um no they don't.

By virtue of the 1st amendment you have every right to express your discontent and belief that a particular law is unconstitutional.

Neither the Cities nor the individual States have the right to determine the Constitutionality of any federal law.

 

[Contumacious]

30 years before Lincoln settled the secession issue, Congress authorized the President to use military force against a state to enforce federal tariffs.

So today the feds have the right to attack and murder civilians for exercising their unalienable right to vote? Yet we the people are not allowed to express our discontent at unconstitutional laws? If a voting body votes it unconstitutional, what right does the federal level have to massacre them for it?

Voting is constitutional. So um no they don't.

By virtue of the 1st amendment you have every right to express your discontent and belief that a particular law is unconstitutional.

Neither the Cities nor the individual States have the right to determine the Constitutionality of any federal law.

That is correct.

We are at their mercy.

We are supposed to pray five times a day facing DC.

.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

I wonder if a city has the right to be a sanctuary for illegals like San Francisco?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

I wonder if a city has the right to be a sanctuary for illegals like San Francisco?

Only when the Fed lets it just like the States that approved use of Mary Jane.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But what of the voters? As the government draws its power directly from their consent to be ruled, surely it is Constitutional for them to petition the government peacefully through the city level, where the government can more tend the needs of the people, as opposed to the feds. The Constitution does grant the people the right to peacefully petition the government, and this is one such avenue the people can pursue. A city is more likely to listen to individuals more than a state, and a state is more likely to listen to a city, and the feds are more likely to listen to a state. Thus, if the voters vote a law to be unconstitutional in their eyes, the law is, at least for that area.

There are 50 States and thousands of cities. You think one city amongst thousands should have the power to decide for the rest of the Country what is right?

I know I disagree with just about every ordinance and law out of San Francisco to name JUST one liberal city.

We have a process to determine if laws and acts of Congress or the President or agencies of the Federal Government are legal and Constitutional and it does not include trying to nullify them at a local level. In fact that approach is specifically unconstitutional itself.

Yet I never said that one city can decide policy for the rest. rather, if a majority of voting citizens in an area vote down a bill they deem to be unconstitutional, why does the gov't have to shove it down their throats? They believe it to be unconstitutional. Will you send military forces in to "keep the peace" and arrest people for voting? Look at Russia and Crimea. No doubt many of you arguing against me condemned Russia for doing exactly what some on your side seem to be suggesting!
BTW, one city already does decide policy for the rest of the nation. It is called Washington D.C.

You just doubled down on your claim that a Local city can in fact violate State or federal law simply because it wants to. Doesn't work that way.

And a City Government does not decide US laws, the US Congress does that. Got any more idiotic claims?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry... Are you asking if a state can make an already illegal activity illegal?

The Un-Patriot act made it all legal like. Individual warrants are no longer needed for the feds. They were given blanket permission by this act and one judge to spy on every single aspect of every single citizen's electronic communications that they can get their hands on. The communications vendors (telcos, ISPs, search engines, etc.) are further required by law to give them full unfettered access to everything...

 

[Clementine]

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...

Great post and I wish more would adopt that attitude.

In a sane world, it would never be illegal for states to uphold the constitution. Not that it will spare them from being sued by Obama's DOJ.

It's the same with immigration laws. States want to follow the federal laws, but the administration will sue them for NOT breaking them. It's all so backwards.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes they have a right to pass a law like that, unenforceable as it may be, they can still pass it.

So the Feds can still break the Constitution, even though a city/state specifically passed legislation concerning said breaches? And once the city/state finds out? Great for federal PR.

Breaking- but Unsurprising- News! Feds break Constitutional and Local law, telling the voters there that their votes are actually worthless to them!

The laws, when not overturned or deemed unconstitutional by the SC, are simply not unconstitutional. Cities and States do not have the authority to deem a federal law unconstitutional.

They can deem it anything want ... However, since they lost the 10th amendment through the civil war amendments, and also lost the power of the Senate through the change to how Senators are elected.. yeah states have no power to resist federal authority outside of the federal court system. If congress passes an act like the un-patriot act that is clearly unconstitutional, then it is up to the SCOTUS to hear the case and rule accordingly. States, cities, individuals, ... attempting to impede on federal action may be put in jail depending on whether they are democrats or republicans, of course.