derhammer
Regular Member
Sign my petition to the Obama admin to order the immediate repeal of the illegal and unconstitutional gun laws in New Jersey: http://wh.gov/v5z
-derhammer
-derhammer
So the federal government is supposed to just let the states do whatever they want? The federal government is supposed to let the states implement illegal laws that violate the constitution? What if a state implemented a law repealing the fourth amendment, or ending the right to free speech? Should the federal government allow that? I thought the whole POINT of the federal gov't was to make sure all the states play fair - one of the criteria for that is to abide by the constitution. Yes, the states have the right to self-regulate, but not when they pass illegal laws.
-derhammer
Petitioning the Obama administration to get rid of gun control laws would like be petitioning Jeffrey Daumer to make vegetarianism mandatory...
United States Constitution said:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
....
I completely agree that this petition will accomplish exactly nothing substantial, but it's still worth showing that we are here and we want ....
-derhammer
The OP asked a really good question that still needs to be answered. If a state enacts a law in direct violation of the Constitution, why don't the feds step in? SCOTUS could look at laws that are reported. Have a screening process, as to not waste time with BS reports of laws, and then let the judges look at the suspect laws. The feds get involved in state issues all the time. Why not get involved in a real concern? Some have said the Constitution only applies to the feds. Your wrong, there are references to the fed gov in some sections and not in others. IMO that means unless it specifically says feds, it applies to everyone.
Some have said the Constitution only applies to the feds. Your wrong, there are references to the fed gov in some sections and not in others. IMO that means unless it specifically says feds, it applies to everyone.
You can quote me court precedent and "this is how it is" all you want; the Constitution is very clear. Just because SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional ruling does not make it right. The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That means that if SCOTUS rules that rights can be restricted - infringed upon - then their ruling is unconstitutional, therefore, it is wrong. The Supremacy Clause, as I posted, clearly states that where state law contradicts the Constitution, the Constitution shall reign supreme. Therefore, New Jersey laws infringing our right to bear arms are, in fact, unconstitutional, no matter what SCOTUS or any other gov't org or court says.
Just to be clear (because someone will try to sandbag me on this one if I don't put in this disclaimer) - I do comprehend that from a legal standpoint, SCOTUS may have ruled that rights can be violated and the Constitution is irrelevant (yes, if the states don't have to follow it, it means next to nothing - maybe the fed can't intrude on our rights to bear arms (not that they don't), but if all the states can act like their own separate countries, then the document is worthless) - but that does not mean their ruling was Constitutionally correct. I also don't understand the rudeness I'm being met with here. Already I've been accused of being ignorant (having missed lessons in Civics), and compared to a hippie. Is there really a need for the verbal aggression? Why can't we just disagree respectfully without the foolish ad hominems?
-derhammer
You can quote me court precedent and "this is how it is" all you want; the Constitution is very clear. Just because SCOTUS makes an unconstitutional ruling does not make it right. The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. ....
I also don't understand the rudeness I'm being met with here. Already I've been accused of being ignorant (having missed lessons in Civics), and compared to a hippie. Is there really a need for the verbal aggression? Why can't we just disagree respectfully without the foolish ad hominems?
-derhammer
Throwing in some of my recommended reading for the OP:
Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government
The Anti-Federalist Papers:
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/antifederalist/antifed.htm
The Federalist Papers