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.
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.
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.
Yeah the assumption is that the federal laws like the unpatriot act are always consitutional until proven unconsitutional by a SCOTUS ruling.
Both political parties have decided to turn our country into a police state. If you want this to end your gonna have to elect a president that will stop it, vs. promising to stop it like Obama the lying pig did.
As for your second paragraph, its noting but ignorant partisanism and stupidity, where the PA in no way manifests the United States as a police state. In fact, your reference only exhibits your ignorance of what a police state actually is.Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON
Local authorities have no arrest power over federal authorities. They can arrest Federal employees of any bureau or section but they can not legally arrest Law enforcement or Government officials exercising what is a Federal law or statute. In other words Federal law trumps State and local law.
The recourse would be to take it to court and have a Federal Court agree the Local or State law was legal and that the federal law was not.
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'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.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Federal Laws.
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.
Yeah the assumption is that the federal laws like the unpatriot act are always consitutional until proven unconsitutional by a SCOTUS ruling.
Both political parties have decided to turn our country into a police state. If you want this to end your gonna have to elect a president that will stop it, vs. promising to stop it like Obama the lying pig did.
Its not an assumption, its a accepted and settled Constitutional principle.
As for your second paragraph, its noting but ignorant partisanism and stupidity, where the PA in no way manifests the United States as a police state. In fact, your reference only exhibits your ignorance of what a police state actually is.Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON
The recourse is through the courts. A State may pass any law it wants, if the federal Government feels it supersedes Federal law they will take it to Court, have a Judge suspend the enforcement of the law and then it will wind its way through the Courts.
Same for the States , if they feel a federal law is wrong they have to take it to court.
A city may not invalidate State or federal law with ordinances.
The recourse is through the courts. A State may pass any law it wants, if the federal Government feels it supersedes Federal law they will take it to Court, have a Judge suspend the enforcement of the law and then it will wind its way through the Courts.
Same for the States , if they feel a federal law is wrong they have to take it to court.
A city may not invalidate State or federal law with ordinances.
You are factually incorrect. I also think you are missing the point.
If Obama passes a law tomorrow that any reference to God outside of a church building is subject to criminal penalty, and the City of Limewater, AK. passes an ordnance stating that local law enforcement will dilligently protect the 1st Amendment rights of citizens; then you will find that the city has every right to pass laws nullifying unconstitutional law by the Federal Government.
Obama is not a dictator, he just acts like one.
Actually, you are the one that is wrong. Your heart is in the right place.. but sadly the states lost the 10th amendment with the 14th.
The states have been barred from passing laws making themselves enforcers of constitutionally (U.S. Constitution) protected rights. RetiredGySgt is correct.
The feds can "ask" the states to help, but the states are not allowed to take charge of the fed's tasks without express permission.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (see 14th amendment to the Constitution.)
One of the key words being "abridge." It means, in part, that the states can't take a federal law and remove federal from it by replacing themselves. Thus the federal laws can't become state laws for enforcement by the states, nor can the states enforce any such laws on the books, not without becoming agents of the federal government... which usually comes with federal guidelines and gotchas. The larger the book of federal laws becomes, the more we retreat from being a republic.
The ACA is a great example. Prior to the ACA every state had it's own individual laws regarding he matters discussed in the ACA. Now every state has to comply with the ACA by the book and can only enforce where the ACA says they can. Thus the ACA took away the power of the states to regulate health care except where permitted expressly. Watch for the permissions to be pulled away one state at a time to force them into line.
The federal government has no authority to violate the United States Constitution, thus the supremacy clause fails in cases where they do.
.
Actually, you are the one that is wrong. Your heart is in the right place.. but sadly the states lost the 10th amendment with the 14th.
Not even close to true.
In fact, a law that abridges the rights an immunities of citizens violates the 14th.
People get confused by the supremacy clause. It does NOT give the Federal Government supremacy in all matters. It merely states that in matters of OVERLAPPING authority, the federal law is supreme. IF the federal government lacks authority, then there is no application of the supremacy clause.
Example: Bob builds a deck using unshielded lag bolts. The IRS comes along and demands he tear it down, even though the city building code states that unshielded lags are fine. Does the IRS have supremacy? NO, because the federal government has no authority over building codes.
The federal government has no authority to violate the United States Constitution, thus the supremacy clause fails in cases where they do.
The states have been barred from passing laws making themselves enforcers of constitutionally (U.S. Constitution) protected rights. RetiredGySgt is correct.
Yes and no. The States cannot decide on Constitutionality of laws, but most states already have laws that affirm the rights conferred in the Constitution. The California State constitution specifies that freedom of religion will be guaranteed. So my hypothetical isn't really hypothetical. If Obama made such a decree,t he state ALREADY has law on the books to defy it.
The feds can "ask" the states to help, but the states are not allowed to take charge of the fed's tasks without express permission.
Violating the Constitution is a task of the federal government.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (see 14th amendment to the Constitution.)
One of the key words being "abridge." It means, in part, that the states can't take a federal law and remove federal from it by replacing themselves. Thus the federal laws can't become state laws for enforcement by the states, nor can the states enforce any such laws on the books, not without becoming agents of the federal government... which usually comes with federal guidelines and gotchas. The larger the book of federal laws becomes, the more we retreat from being a republic.
The ACA is a great example. Prior to the ACA every state had it's own individual laws regarding he matters discussed in the ACA. Now every state has to comply with the ACA by the book and can only enforce where the ACA says they can. Thus the ACA took away the power of the states to regulate health care except where permitted expressly. Watch for the permissions to be pulled away one state at a time to force them into line.
Again, this is a sticky question. The Roberts court dubbed Obama's fascist care to be a tax. The federal government has the authority to tax. In areas of overlapping authority, the federal law has supremacy, thus Obamacare is within the supremacy clause.
The federal government has no authority to violate the United States Constitution, thus the supremacy clause fails in cases where they do.
.
Exactly.
"Therefore every valid act of congress must find in the constitution some warrant for its passage. This is apparent by reference to the following provisions of the constitution: Section 1 of the first article declares that all legislative powers granted by the constitution shall be vested in the congress of the United States. Section 8 of the same article enumerates the powers granted to the congress, and concludes the enumeration with a grant of power 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.' Article 10 of the amendments to the constitution declares that 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.'
UNITED STATES v. HARRIS and others., 106 U.S. 629 (U.S. 01/22/1883)
.
The progressives have been at it for 100 years...it is time to exercise Article V before they try to destroy it as well.If the Constitution is considered to be a guideline and not the law of the land the consensus might be that any affront to the Bill of Rights is justified depending on the political climate. If state and local governments abide by Constitutional law and the federal government is free to violate the rights and freedoms of American citizens we are in deep shit.
If the Constitution is considered to be a guideline and not the law of the land the consensus might be that any affront to the Bill of Rights is justified depending on the political climate. If state and local governments abide by Constitutional law and the federal government is free to violate the rights and freedoms of American citizens we are in deep shit.
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 they can declare martial law and put the finishing touches on the Police State they've crafted.If the Constitution is considered to be a guideline and not the law of the land the consensus might be that any affront to the Bill of Rights is justified depending on the political climate. If state and local governments abide by Constitutional law and the federal government is free to violate the rights and freedoms of American citizens we are in deep shit.
Then we fall into civil war; which I believe to be the goal of Obama and those behind him.
The progressives have been at it for 100 years...it is time to exercise Article V before they try to destroy it as well.If the Constitution is considered to be a guideline and not the law of the land the consensus might be that any affront to the Bill of Rights is justified depending on the political climate. If state and local governments abide by Constitutional law and the federal government is free to violate the rights and freedoms of American citizens we are in deep shit.
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.
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.
But were you not saying the feds have the right to force people to pay tariffs, even through military means? And clearly you meant to apply that to the proposal. So maybe massacring civilians is an exaggeration, but jailing is not.
Let's do a mock of how my proposal would work in essence.
The federal government passes a law banning assault weapons for everyone, and they are sending agents to take them. My city calls for an emergency vote of all voting citizens, who overwhelmingly vote the law unconstitutional. The City Council then passes legislation under my proposal banning federal officials from enforcing the law in the city limits. The government does what?
Let it go? Imprison those who refuse to comply? Shoot them?[/QUOTE]
Bingo.
Ask the surviving Davidians.
