Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court declared that “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
So the Missouri law nullifying Federal gun restrictions, should sail right through.
Oh boy, I won't even bother. No it won't sail right through. If that was the case, then why aren't states just ignoring the feds all over the place? There is a reason they aren't. SCOTUS has to rule what is Constitutional or not, not some State executive or State judge. They can only do that for their own STATE CONSTITUTION.
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court declared that “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
So the Missouri law nullifying Federal gun restrictions, should sail right through.
That is not what Marbury v. Madison did, that was the ruling in which the USSC said that the courts had authority to ascertain the constitutionality of laws.
That is if Eric and Barry agree and allow them to ignore the law. Hope & Change seems to have given way to Pick & Choose......
Well, Eric Holder isn't a state, so...
But yes, it is a dangerous precedent - one that has been recurring - the DOJ will also omit how much drugs were seized to circumvent mandatory minimums, and the recent ruling on Prop. 8 means that the state of CA can simply decline to defend a proposition that was passed by the majority of voters.
Personally I think all the decisions made were the right decisions, but were done in the wrong way. A nation of laws has to be a nation of laws. If we simply choose to stop enforcing certain laws rather than actually repeal them through the proper channels, the law becomes meaningless.
The whole point of a constitutional republic is the rule of law, and not simply the lawless rule of the elected leaders according to their whims.
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court declared that “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
So the Missouri law nullifying Federal gun restrictions, should sail right through.
That is not what Marbury v. Madison did, that was the ruling in which the USSC said that the courts had authority to ascertain the constitutionality of laws.
It's in my copy. Are you using some "Abridged version" that does't have it?
It goes to the heart of constitutional law, of course. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If Missouri makes a law that exactly agrees with the Constitution, but disagrees with some Federal law, it's not Missouri's problem. The only one with anything to worry about, is the Fed govt.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 08-29-2013 at 03:33 PM..
Aside from the legal aspects, why would they want to proceed with this. Another giant waste of time like defunding Obama Care. Why change a system that appears to be working.
Quote:
Richard G. Callahan, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of
Missouri, is concerned. He cited a recent joint operation of federal, state and local law
enforcement officials that led to 159 arrests and the seizing of 267 weapons,
and noted that the measure “would have outlawed such operations, and would have
made criminals out of the law enforcement officers.”
Aside from the legal aspects, why would they want to proceed with this. Another giant waste of time like defunding Obama Care. Why change a system that appears to be working.
Where do you get the idea that it "appears to be working"?
The Obama admin just completed a study on the subject, and concluded that reducing the number of guns this way has no effect on crime rates, suicides, etc.
So, this Missouri law that would prevent the Feds from doing this there would save money and not make crimes etc. any worse.
We ceased to be a nation of laws when the president decided he can execute citizens without trial, when the administration smuggled arms to criminal cartels who employed them in crimes in order to support an attack on civil rights, when the administration refused to prosecute the NBP members who tried to scare Whites away from voting....
I agree with you, but the law of the land is that Fed law trumps state law. States can get stricter, but not more relaxing. It's just the way it works. I didn't think this would be so hard to understand in POLITICAL forum!
Oh thank you. I think I understood it just fine after a 20 years career as a political and legislative analyst. My point was, if Obama and his minions can cherry-pick federal and Constitutional law, why shouldn't the states? Just more fodder for the courts and attorneys. Think of it as their full employment act!
Richard G. Callahan, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, is concerned. He cited a recent joint operation of federal, state and local law enforcement officials that led to 159 arrests and the seizing of 267 weapons, and noted that the measure “would have outlawed such operations, and would have made criminals out of the law enforcement officers.”"""""""""""""""""""""""""
Ha ha ha loved that one
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
