Obama Administration Shuts Down Oldest Gun Show in Central Texas (Palestinians, Israel)
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.
Federal authority only supersedes states when it's a lawful exercise of a power granted in the Constitution and by constitutional laws.
Some sheriffs have in the past blocked the feds, and won in court.
That is true, plus many federal cases have been dismissed based on successful challenges to jurisdiction, though the majority simply don't have the large amounts of money required to fight off relentless US Attorneys.
More on the power of the sheriff: From Sheriff Mack
I like how you've added this disclaimer only *after* it's been pointed out how wrong you are.
Read a little closer.
I said earlier that the federal authorities can take over pretty much any case they want to at any time. Do you even realize what the term "federal statutes" entails?
Since you are using "WikiAnswers" as a citation, I am going to guess not.
Federal authorities will always be able to find some statute that grants them access and control over a case, if they look hard enough.
Of course, I'm bothering to try and explain this to a guy who thinks someone who believes in FEMA concentration camps and other nutty conspiracies is the correct poster in this thread.
And no, federal authority supersedes state authority whenever federal statutes are violated.
No federal statute can override state sovereignty, nor can the Federal government grant itself powers that are not allowed by the constitution .. not even by statute or executive orders. Your attempts to declare otherwise shows your lack of understanding.
I got you a video since you seem to have a reading comprehension issue.
Sheriff Mack won a case that went to the Supreme Court .. he gives a little lesson on the constitution, and the power of the Sheriff.
No federal statute can override state sovereignty, nor can the Federal government grant itself powers that are not allowed by the constitution .. not even by statute or executive orders. Your attempts to declare otherwise shows your lack of understanding.
I got you a video since you seem to have a reading comprehension issue.
Sheriff Mack won a case that went to the Supreme Court .. he gives a little lesson on the constitution, and the power of the Sheriff.
Of course it can.
Federal agencies overrule state agencies all the time.
Each state is not a sovereign nation, it's part of a union controlled by a central government, and state laws often take a backseat to federal laws.
As far as the one example of a Sheriff that you seem to be able to find, the case he won had nothing to do with his powers as a Sheriff at all. I already addressed that when I educated you about what the 10th Amendment actually does. At least you seem to have vaguely grasped that.
I said earlier that the federal authorities can take over pretty much any case they want to at any time. Do you even realize what the term "federal statutes" entails?
Since you are using "WikiAnswers" as a citation, I am going to guess not.
Federal authorities will always be able to find some statute that grants them access and control over a case, if they look hard enough.
Of course, I'm bothering to try and explain this to a guy who thinks someone who believes in FEMA concentration camps and other nutty conspiracies is the correct poster in this thread.
Yes indeed, that would be me. And those with something larger than a concord grape for a brain readily recognizes how plainly wrong you are.
Now lets get you up to speed.
This video is the the Speaker of the House, reading the Bill HR8791 Homeland Terrorism Preparedness Bill for a House vote.
Take special note of the fact that the Speaker says "classified" 18 times during the recital ... at the 14th "classified" he says "jesus", apparently that "classified" was particularly alarming or disturbing. And I wonder just how the house members can honestly vote for something that the cannot read, and half of the bill is "classified"? And take special note toward the end when he says " and a NEW BILL OF RIGHTS will be developed by "classified".
That you don't know about something, doesn't make it a nutty conspiracy ... you know very little about the constitution or the bill of rights, but the 2nd amendment is not a conspiracy theory, and neither are classified plans for (official) suspension of the constitution, marshall law, and yes .... FEMA Camps.
So here ya go ... Camp FEMA ... the camps that don't exist, even though the contracts to build them are documented and part and of the public record ... the legislation granting the government it's phony legal "color of law" right to detain and relocate American citizens into "FEMA Relocation Centers" already signed into law ... but all of this is just one big nutty conspiracy?
Look, if you want to remain ignorant, that's your choice, but don't tell me, or mislead others about how the world is, because all you can see is your lower colon, given where you have your head.
And here is the congressman that is a little upset that plans for the "Continuity of Government" won't even be shared with the committee on Homeland Security.
Now, Officer Jack McLamb, the most decorated police officer in Phoenix Arizona's history says that there are plans that have been communicated to him by sources within the law enforcement community that advanced plans are in place to round up American citizens and place them in FEMA camps to be executed ... there are already lists and designations, and this will occur upon declaration of marshall law.
The civil unrest they are expecting will be brought about by the total collapse of the dollar and economy.
Now you can return your head to it's favorite resting place, or you can wake up.
But you have no right to mislead others with your continuing efforts to discredit the facts.
Federal agencies overrule state agencies all the time.
Each state is not a sovereign nation, it's part of a union controlled by a central government, and state laws often take a backseat to federal laws.
As far as the one example of a Sheriff that you seem to be able to find, the case he won had nothing to do with his powers as a Sheriff at all. I already addressed that when I educated you about what the 10th Amendment actually does. At least you seem to have vaguely grasped that.
Maybe we just have a disconnect about language, and what is legally done and what is illegally done. Is that it?
You're right in saying that Federal overrules state all of the time. NO ONE IS ARGUING that fact. The ISSUE is that it is AGAINST THE LAW for them to do it. The Constitution IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, and the Federal Government is violating it all of the time.
And you are lying about the case Sheriff Mack won in the Supreme Court. The foundational argument of the case was State jurisdiction and autonomy. And Sheriff Mack very articulately explained it.
So you're just too stubborn to admit you're wrong. It's easy ... just admit it. But don's sit there like a fool and try to convince someone that he didn't say what he said ... everyone can see and hear what the man said.
The gist of which is exactly what I've been saying .. Artical 1, Section 8 of the constitution defines the powers granted to the federal government. If the power isn't granted there ... they don't have it. And the 10th Amendment states that those powers not granted to the government are reserved to the state, and to the people, respectively.
End of story.
Do they violate that? All of the time ... some pretty big ones are:
1) Federal Reserve Act - illegal .. the congress is granted the power to coin and regulate the value of money ..they do not have the power to hand over that authority to a group of private bankers. The act is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
2) Every war since WW II has been illegal, as the United States may not engage in war without a declaration of war by congress. None of them have been declared, including the two right now.
3) Income Tax on American citizens wages and salaries are unconstitutional and illegal. The 16th Amendment, as found by the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment conferred no new taxing power to the government. And how could it? You cannot have conflicting laws, therefore, unless you repeal the law that says you can't lay a direct tax without apportionment, you can't have an amendment that says you can.
Now you like to call on federal statutes .. let me tell you about one that was on the books for several years until congressmen were scared by the screaming over it ...and repealed it in 2003.
50 USC Chapter 32, sec 1520 Authorized the Department of Defense or it's contractor to conduct chemical and biological weapons testing in the American public without their knowledge or consent.
Now, you don't need to be an expert in constitutional law to recognize the outrageous violation of the law that this "Statute" represented.
It's been replaced with 1520a and named Restrictions on Chemical and Biological Weapons Testing on the American people, with the stipulation that there must be informed consent.
This is the government that would NEVER build FEMA camps, huh?
Tell that the the Japanese Americans that were rounded up like cattle and incarcerated in camps without a hearing, and judge, a lawyer, or a trial.
please note that an arsenal is a place that makes firearms, a collection is what people own.
please also note that dianna feinstein "gag", owns a very large privately owned collection "somewhere near 300 firearms", and this is from a gun hating liberal.
she just doesnt want you and I "the private citizen" to own firearms, but her and her elitists friends should be exempt from the very laws that congress makes.
I found this on wikipedia----
Gun politics
In 1993, Feinstein, along with then-Representative Charles Schumer (D-NY), led the fight to ban many semi-automatic firearms deemed to be assault weapons and restrict the sale of standard capacity firearm magazines. The ban was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In 2004, when the ban was set to expire, Feinstein sponsored a 10-year extension of the ban as an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; while the amendment was successfully added, the act itself failed.[38] The act was revived in 2005, but was ultimately passed without an extension of the assault weapons ban.
Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[38] In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.[39]
Feinstein was accused of hypocrisy when it became public information that despite her stringent anti-gun record, the Senator maintained a Concealed Weapons permit and actively carried a .38 caliberSmith & Wesson revolver for her personal safety. It is unknown if she still carries the concealed firearm or maintains the permit, but according to The Stentorian, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown stated in 2000 that she had voluntarily relinquished both the concealed weapons permit and the firearm.[40][41][42] When challenged, she stated "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."[43]
In 1999, Jill Labbe, of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, recounted Mrs. Feinstein's actions at an anti-gun press conference, where Mrs. Feinstein displayed an AK-47 assault rifle. Despite her assertions of being trained in handling firearms, after picking it up, she broke multiple basic and commonly known firearms handling safety rules; placing her finger on the trigger, and then sweeping the muzzle across the room, pointing at people who were present. A reporter who was in the audience and familiar with firearms safety, stood in disbelief as the AK-47 was painted across the crowded room.[44]
I'd bother responding, but I lost it after the part about FEMA concentration camps. You're obviously so far gone that it won't make a bit of difference.
So, what if he is right???
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.
Quite a collection.
