• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Petition to White House to rescind New Jersey gun laws

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Were you absent the week they taught basic civics?

The White House (the President) cannot rescind the laws of any state - unless he is bucking for the start of a civil war. The same goes for Congress. The Governor of the State of New Jersey cannot rescind the laws of the state, but could get impeached if he tried.

Perhaps you would do better by directing your petition to the legislators of the State of New Jersey.

stay safe.
 

xxx.jakk.xxx

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
467
Tenth Amendment
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.


Even though they won't follow this to remove the federal restrictions, they'd most definitely use it for why they won't remove a state's restrictions. Also, it's pretty lame when one who argues to have the government follow the constitution and the rights it acknowledges but asks for the government to roll right over the constitution.
 

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
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
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Petitioning the Obama administration to get rid of gun control laws would like be petitioning Jeffrey Daumer to make vegetarianism mandatory...
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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

Sigh...the Constitution was only ever intended to apply to the federal government. Even though most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated to the states (a Constitutionally-dubious proposition) by the Supreme Court, the president cannot legally repeal state laws he believes violate rights. Cases have to be brought in court to knock the laws out, most often, one by one, painfully slowly. Please read up on "federalism" and "separation of powers."
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Petitioning the Obama administration to get rid of gun control laws would like be petitioning Jeffrey Daumer to make vegetarianism mandatory...

True...

Really, OP, I wouldn't begin to try, for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's not in the feds' purview to stick their fingers in an area our Constitution says belongs to the States.
 

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
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.

This seems to me to imply no state has the right to enact a law in violation of the national constitution, therefore, I think the thought stands that the federal gov't has a responsibility to make sure the several states are respecting our rights as outlined in the national constitution's first ten amendments.

I completely agree that this petition will accomplish exactly nothing substantial, but it's still worth showing that we are here and we want New Jersey to stop engaging in its criminal activities of rights suppression.

-derhammer
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
....

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

Sounds like hippie-speak to me.

Most of us here got past the "accomplish exactly nothing substantial but it makes us feel good" stage a long time ago. We pick our battles, lay out plans based on the greatest probability of success, and go to war with little fanfare but great determination.

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
A republican form of government can is good. Just cuz NJ voters elected nitwits is not the feds problem....nor mine. NJ citizens can take care of themselves, if they choose to do so.

Ya don't like NJ laws....don't go to NJ....or move out of NJ.
 

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.

No, the constitution only applies to the Feds, until you get to where SCOTUS has specifically said the 14th Amendment makes it apply to the States as well.

I guess you missed those five minutes of civics class.

And in case you missed the 30 seconds following that, SCOTUS has said (and they get to say it) that there can be restrictions on rights. And SCOTUS gets to be the decider of which restrictions on rights are constitutional.

Basing you argument, or where you draw a line in the stand, on just the words wtitten in the Constitution without taking into account all the case law that has gone on since those words were written is worse than foolhardy - it will likely land you in jail without an effective appeal for you to claim.

And as for why SCOTUS/the Feds don't just step in and tidy stuff up - - - No, that's really to long to explain here. Go look up "standing" and "jurisdiction". You need the first and SCOTUS does not get the latter until/unless you have exhausted all other levels of appeal. And even if they have jurisdiction they can (and do more often than not) decline to assume it for any of a number of reasons. They have all of this written down in their Rules, which are available on the intartubes.

I do get weary of folks who do not take the time to learn both how and why our form of government works the way it does. While I may not always agree with what .gov does, I can only deal with what they do if I know both the how and the why that led to their doing it. Folks without this understanding not only waste time, energy and money but make it harder to challenge the .gov because of the crappy case law that gets added to the mix via rulings that the violations they alleg (and therefore some similar complaints in the future) are not actually violations.

stay safe.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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.

Well, you should march right up the SCOTUS steps and tell them that. Also be sure to mention where you studied constitutional law. :rolleyes:
 

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
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
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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

Hmmm...let's see I can make this clear enough for you to understand:

THE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WERE ONLY EVER INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND DO NOT APPLY TO THE STATES EXCEPT IN THOSE SPECIFIC CASES IN WHICH SCOTUS SAYS THEY DO.

Cases must be brought one by one. The president cannot revoke a Supreme Court decision, or "rescind" state laws you or he or the crazy bag lady down the street thinks are unconstitutional. To do so would be an unacceptable breach of separation of powers and federalism.

By not understanding this after having it pointed out to you, you raise suspicion that you do not have a working knowledge of U.S. civics. It is not an ad hominem attack if the evidence suggests it...
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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. ....

Two comments: ultimatefacepalm.png and beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

Have you read "Don Quixote"? I see great similarity between your assertions and the hero of that novel. But if thinking the way you do, and the resultant "tsuris" [go look it up, it's Yiddish] is making you feel good, far be it for me to stop you. All I ask is that you do not try to convince me that your vision is right.


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

I never accused you of missing the civics class. I inquired if you had. You have not yet answered the question. Similarly, I never accused you of being a hippie. I mentioned that what you wrote sounded like hippie-speak. While you seem to be upset you offer nothing to show why that comment would be erroneous. Both the question and the comment are available below if you need/want to check what was actually written.

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla

It's like asking an anti to use logic and reason - a good try but no cigar.

Of course I'm always open to seeing someone actually learn something.

stay safe.
 

derhammer

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Messages
66
Location
Pennsylvania
Alright, there is really no point in continuing this thread. Just for the hell of it, I'll say, no, I did not miss civics class, and no, I am not a hippie (comparing my words with hippie-speak is close enough to comparing me with a hippie, and to deny that is just splitting hairs).

As far as I'm concerned, it's fine with me if this thread were closed now and I'd be happy with that.

-derhammer
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Apparently, you missed the class when everyone else learned the president can't "rescind" state laws.

But, really,
tumblr_llqie3QfSt1qcfl1zo1_500.png
 
Top