Is This Unconstitutional?

[CorvusRexus]

No he is asking if a State or local authority can supersede Federal laws.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL Federal Laws.

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.

A court ruling will do nothing to ease the outrage of a mob of angry citizens watching their freedoms burn.

 

[CorvusRexus]

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.

And BlindBoo still treats me like an idiot.
I think BlindBoo needs to discover something called the reality of the current federal gov't.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Have you ever heard of the 1960's in Alabama and Arkansas?

 

[candycorn]

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?[


Bingo.

Ask the surviving Davidians.

And BlindBoo still treats me like an idiot.
I think BlindBoo needs to discover something called the reality of the current federal gov't.

Federal law supersedes state laws. States nor citizens do not get to pick and choose what laws to obey. There is a time honored and successful path for confronting the government when it oversteps it's authority.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

However you try to contrive it, your ‘proposal’ is still un-Constitutional.

Article VI makes it abundantly clear that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress pursuant to the Constitution, and the rulings by Federal courts are indeed supreme to the states and local jurisdictions.

As has been explained to you correctly several times, if a state or local government believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, or a resident of a given state or local jurisdiction believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of that law, with the understanding they must abide by the ruling of that Federal court, up to and including the Supreme Court.

 

[The T]

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.

The progressives have been at it for 100 years...it is time to exercise Article V before they try to destroy it as well.

I am a tad pessimistic. I believe that at this point in time V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E is the ONLY solution.

.

THAT as noted by the Founders was the LAST solution IF all other avenues fail...but the ultimate choice is reserved to the people to choose.

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Wow. Who would of thunk I'm behind Obama?

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

The sheriffs are expected to uphold the Constitution which is why so many in Colorado told the feds to F-off with their draconian gun laws.

-Geaux

 

[The T]

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.

The sheriffs are expected to uphold the Constitution which is why so many in Colorado told the feds to F-off with their draconian gun laws.

-Geaux

Same in Florida.

 

[Geaux4it]

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?

However you try to contrive it, your ‘proposal’ is still un-Constitutional.

Article VI makes it abundantly clear that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress pursuant to the Constitution, and the rulings by Federal courts are indeed supreme to the states and local jurisdictions.

As has been explained to you correctly several times, if a state or local government believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, or a resident of a given state or local jurisdiction believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of that law, with the understanding they must abide by the ruling of that Federal court, up to and including the Supreme Court.

That is if the law is 'recognized'. Laws only stand as tall as its citizens or government allows. The Feds pick choose what laws they want to enforce, so can we.

-Geaux

 

[natstew]

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.

The sheriffs are expected to uphold the Constitution which is why so many in Colorado told the feds to F-off with their draconian gun laws.

-Geaux

Same in Florida.

Liberty County Florida is next door to me in Leon County Florida, but the Democrats outnumber Republicans by two to one in Leon County, whereas in Liberty County the vote went from 54% Republican in 2000 to 71% Republican in 2008.

Gun Hero of the Day: Liberty County, FL Sheriff Nick Finch | The Truth About Guns

Nick Finch is a retired Veteran and a true American Patriot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A court ruling will do nothing to ease the outrage of a mob of angry citizens watching their freedoms burn.

No, but a rerun of Jersey Shore and a Nicks game will completely distract the mob, so no worries. Panem Et Circum

 

[natstew]

UNCONSTITUTIONAL Federal Laws.

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.

A court ruling will do nothing to ease the outrage of a mob of angry citizens watching their freedoms burn.

That won't happen as long as the Government can print/borrow money to appease the peasants with, and that won't end until the almighty dollar crashes and burns, which is coming, BTW. There's no fork in the road ahead, no turning back, anyone shouting a warning, (Glenn Beck) is ridiculed, falsely accused, attacked and destroyed by you Left Wing Progressive, Liberal, Democrats, yeah you, on this site.

Democrats are so much like shit eating dogs, they're not even ashamed of eating shit anymore, just like the dogs they are.
Oh before I leave, I apologize to the Canines of the World, the ones that walk on four legs.

 

[CorvusRexus]

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?

Have you ever heard of the 1960's in Alabama and Arkansas?

Heard of them, not lived through them. '90's child, sorry.

 

[CorvusRexus]

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?

However you try to contrive it, your ‘proposal’ is still un-Constitutional.

Article VI makes it abundantly clear that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress pursuant to the Constitution, and the rulings by Federal courts are indeed supreme to the states and local jurisdictions.

As has been explained to you correctly several times, if a state or local government believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, or a resident of a given state or local jurisdiction believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of that law, with the understanding they must abide by the ruling of that Federal court, up to and including the Supreme Court.

I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.

So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

However you try to contrive it, your ‘proposal’ is still un-Constitutional.

Article VI makes it abundantly clear that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress pursuant to the Constitution, and the rulings by Federal courts are indeed supreme to the states and local jurisdictions.

As has been explained to you correctly several times, if a state or local government believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, or a resident of a given state or local jurisdiction believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of that law, with the understanding they must abide by the ruling of that Federal court, up to and including the Supreme Court.

I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.

So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

 

[CorvusRexus]

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.

A court ruling will do nothing to ease the outrage of a mob of angry citizens watching their freedoms burn.

That won't happen as long as the Government can print/borrow money to appease the peasants with, and that won't end until the almighty dollar crashes and burns, which is coming, BTW. There's no fork in the road ahead, no turning back, anyone shouting a warning, (Glenn Beck) is ridiculed, falsely accused, attacked and destroyed by you Left Wing Progressive, Liberal, Democrats, yeah you, on this site.

Democrats are so much like shit eating dogs, they're not even ashamed of eating shit anymore, just like the dogs they are.
Oh before I leave, I apologize to the Canines of the World, the ones that walk on four legs.

I assume the bolded "you" has nothing to do with me, so...
You are aware the feds only have money to appease the masses with if everyone pays taxes. If such outrage became nation-wide and prevalent in enough areas, the government would have to watch as the people slowly secede, for all intents and purposes.
That is how I predict this will all end up. At first it will be isolated. Towns and small cities here and there refusing to bow. Then other areas taking up the torch and refusing to bow. And it will simply spread until the US government is left with one city v. a country of people who are fed (no pun intended) up with the feds and simply leave. Or kick them out.

 

[CorvusRexus]

However you try to contrive it, your ‘proposal’ is still un-Constitutional.

Article VI makes it abundantly clear that the Federal Constitution, acts of Congress pursuant to the Constitution, and the rulings by Federal courts are indeed supreme to the states and local jurisdictions.

As has been explained to you correctly several times, if a state or local government believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, or a resident of a given state or local jurisdiction believes a Federal law is un-Constitutional, they are at liberty to file suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of that law, with the understanding they must abide by the ruling of that Federal court, up to and including the Supreme Court.

I believe our issues spring from a disagreement over the most basic principles of government.
I personally believe that because any government draws power from the consent and good-will of the people, that the people's direct will supersedes federal law. And this belief is found at the very heart of my proposal.
You no doubt believe governments have the natural right to exist and to have power, so they then supersede the individuals or the masses.

So under my logic and interpretation of government, my proposal is very much legal, whereas your philosophy disregards it completely as crazy.

Once again the PEOPLE surrendered certain things when they agreed to the Constitution. One of them is that Federal law supersedes State and local laws and authority. Acts of Congress and acts of the Executive that are legal under the Constitution are the law of the land. And the Constitution, which the people agreed to, stipulates HOW one challenges Federal law and statute. That is either through another act of Congress or through the Courts.

Your logic is wrong, the people already surrendered the power you are questioning.

So you believe one surrender of power in the belief of a just and somewhat fair government warrants the theft of our rights and freedoms now?

 

[candycorn]

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?

Have you ever heard of the 1960's in Alabama and Arkansas?

Heard of them, not lived through them. '90's child, sorry.

Your "what if's" were answered back then.

 

[candycorn]

A court ruling will do nothing to ease the outrage of a mob of angry citizens watching their freedoms burn.

That won't happen as long as the Government can print/borrow money to appease the peasants with, and that won't end until the almighty dollar crashes and burns, which is coming, BTW. There's no fork in the road ahead, no turning back, anyone shouting a warning, (Glenn Beck) is ridiculed, falsely accused, attacked and destroyed by you Left Wing Progressive, Liberal, Democrats, yeah you, on this site.

Democrats are so much like shit eating dogs, they're not even ashamed of eating shit anymore, just like the dogs they are.
Oh before I leave, I apologize to the Canines of the World, the ones that walk on four legs.

I assume the bolded "you" has nothing to do with me, so...
You are aware the feds only have money to appease the masses with if everyone pays taxes. If such outrage became nation-wide and prevalent in enough areas, the government would have to watch as the people slowly secede, for all intents and purposes.
That is how I predict this will all end up. At first it will be isolated. Towns and small cities here and there refusing to bow. Then other areas taking up the torch and refusing to bow. And it will simply spread until the US government is left with one city v. a country of people who are fed (no pun intended) up with the feds and simply leave. Or kick them out.

Oh brother...I certainly hope the third part of you guys tiresome threesome of revolutionaries is the "smart" one. You and Flake have sat the bar pretty low.