Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA sits out gunfight with feds
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1173972" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>The supremacy clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution and all laws passed pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land (and therefore they trump any conflicting state laws). The problem is when the national government passes laws that are NOT pursuant to the Constitution, i.e. laws it has no authority to pass. The Constitution does not give the authority to determine when a law is unconstitutional to anyone in particular... and we all know that any powers not specifically granted to the national government or any of its constituent parts are retained by the states. Of course the states ceded some of their powers when they joined the union, but this power is not among the enumarated powers which were ceded.</p><p></p><p>If the national government passed a law that was blatantly unconstitutional, such as one making it illegal to say bad things about Congress, it would not suddenly make it constitutional if the Supreme Court ruled that it was. All that means is that the Supreme Court says its constitutional, and all inferior federal courts would be bound rule in accordance with their opinion. In this instance, as with any other unconstitutional law, the states would be perfectly justified in nullifying the law within their boundaries, making it illegal for state employees to help with enforcing it, and/or protecting their citizens from federal attempts to enforce it.</p><p></p><p>How "extreme" the strategy is would depend on how far the state government would be willing to take it. In any case, it is not as extreme as secession... full-on nullification coupled with interposition ought to be the last resort of a state to protect its citizens before leaving the union altogether (another power that was not withheld from the states in the Constitution).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1173972, member: 4235"] The supremacy clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution and all laws passed pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land (and therefore they trump any conflicting state laws). The problem is when the national government passes laws that are NOT pursuant to the Constitution, i.e. laws it has no authority to pass. The Constitution does not give the authority to determine when a law is unconstitutional to anyone in particular... and we all know that any powers not specifically granted to the national government or any of its constituent parts are retained by the states. Of course the states ceded some of their powers when they joined the union, but this power is not among the enumarated powers which were ceded. If the national government passed a law that was blatantly unconstitutional, such as one making it illegal to say bad things about Congress, it would not suddenly make it constitutional if the Supreme Court ruled that it was. All that means is that the Supreme Court says its constitutional, and all inferior federal courts would be bound rule in accordance with their opinion. In this instance, as with any other unconstitutional law, the states would be perfectly justified in nullifying the law within their boundaries, making it illegal for state employees to help with enforcing it, and/or protecting their citizens from federal attempts to enforce it. How "extreme" the strategy is would depend on how far the state government would be willing to take it. In any case, it is not as extreme as secession... full-on nullification coupled with interposition ought to be the last resort of a state to protect its citizens before leaving the union altogether (another power that was not withheld from the states in the Constitution). [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA sits out gunfight with feds
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom