Eric Holder Threatens Kansas

The law in Raich was about homegrown pot.

 

Which is interesting but utterly fails to address the point.

 

Kansas clearly doesn't care for tradition followed since the 1800's that has said SCOTUS has final say as to what is constitutional. You would think they have strong reverence for tradition given their stance on gay marriage.

 

Thanks Iron River. Your point keeps being overlooked. The tenth amendment is pretty clear. The federal government was not delegated the power, the commerce clause only pertains to regulations between States, and some federal laws are not pursuant of the intent of the Constitution. These things were not settled at the end of the civil war as some suggest.

 

I bring up Holder because if you think he has the authority to put Kansas in its place, doesn't he also have the responsibility and duty to uphold all the federal laws? You seem to be cherry picking here. Maybe I'm wrong about you, I don't know.

 

I do question the role of SCOTUS. When the decider is part of the federal government, yes, it begs questioning.

 

It could very well be hypocritical; I don't follow Holder. However, in this case, it seems pretty clear that the idea by the Kansas legislature was to finger the government, and the implications of this law are clear: "do not pass any gun control on a federal level, regardless of how the supreme court rules - we will not follow the law of the land in that case".

 

Most States just go along with the Fed. However, when some federal laws are passed that require the States to fund the enforcement of that law, may States are turning their backs, as in REAL ID for instance. The nullification movement is taking hold by reaffirming the Constitution within the language of their State laws. They are citing the common understanding held by the populace during the time the State was admitted to the union. They are claiming the right of the Tenth Amendment as stated and are nullifying federal laws that are not pursuant to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. More than half the States have passed nullification laws in the past five years dealing with healthcare, gun laws, drug laws, etc.

There is a long history of this. The States nullified the federal law of capturing southern slaves. Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799 brought nullification to light.

 

You are still resorting to a fallacy of false cause by omitting the intelligent design of the doctrine of separation of powers. You only plead, specially regarding purely federal obligations; not the traditional police power of a State, which our federal Congress is only delegated in the federal districts.

 

Only a retard opposes the real id act

 

Who else would interpret it? The individual states? lol

SCOTUS is part of the federal government, but they sit in good behavior. That means that it's practically impossible to remove them from office. So their interests are not tied with the government's. The government isn't going to get rid of them if they rule against it. So why question them?

 

Let us remember that no provision which violates 2A is legally enforceable...

...so this is actually a bad idea.

 

Actually, it is enforceable until someone challenges an enforcement action and the courts strike it down.

 

Not really, because in that case there is no law, cognizable by anyone under a constitutional oath, to nullify; and any notice given by a state that it refuses to respect an unconstitutional statute is merely a courtesy.

 

The Second Amendment IS Federal law, and the Federal government can pass whatever bills they like, but they do not become "law" unless they conform to the US Constitution. Any bill that runs afoul of the Constitution is null and void and unenforceable by definition, certainly not to be confused with the "law".

 

Actually you are 100% wrong. Any law passed by congress is constitutional until the supreme court says it is not. And they dont automatically review laws. A challenge must be brought before them..

Some of you need to retake civics.

 

Correct.

Not true. There is nothing in the US Constitution which gives the Supreme Court any authority over the Constitution itself. If the Congress passes a bill that says "all Jews will be executed after the enactment of this bill", it would be unlawful on its face, requiring no "judicial review" or arbitration from the Supreme Court; moreover, such arbitration would carry no moral or lawful weight. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to render an unconstitutional bill constitutional.

That's because you don't understand how to properly construe the Constitution. There is nothing which gives the SCOTUS any power to "decide what the constitution means". The Constitution means what it says!

 

Using your "logic", the Congress could pass a bill ordering the summary execution of every Jew in the country and it would be enforceable until the SCOTUS said otherwise. Taking your logic even further, the SCOTUS could actually decide that the bill was perfectly constitutional.

 

A law doesn't require judicial review to be unconstitutional. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring judicial review. Even then, Article III Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress power to regulate the Supreme Court in regards to appeals. Maybe before you call out people who need to take civics lessons, you should read the Constitution.

 

Laws are only enforceable if jurors support them by convicting people charged with breaking them. The people can legalize anything if they stop convicting people of the particular crime. The typical juror is too stupid to exercise his own judgment.

 

If most of the conservatives in here are basing everything on the tenth amendment and its felt the Feds are wrong, then there is nothing really to get all worked up over. They'll file suit in the SCOTUS and it'll get kicked out. So therefore based on logic, no one in here should feel threatened of a loss of states rights.

 

You go Eric, alienate the rest of the public. While your at it, explain to us how you can enforce gun laws on individual states and still supply Mexican Drug cartels with thousands of military style assault rifles and hand grenades? I couldn't think of a better strategy to destroy the Democrat party besides Obama Care. Keep up the great works Eric, with your help the Democrats won't see the inside of the White house for at least 40 years.

 

That was an in depth analysis.

 

You are more than welcome to cite the constitutional provision(s) from which this pronouncement is reasonably inferred.

If your understanding comes from academic authority figures rather than your own insight, no wonder you're constitutionally illiterate.

 

But the individual States do not get to make that determination, only the SCOTUS can do that.