Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2014, 11:44 PM
 
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
408 posts, read 214,137 times
Reputation: 193

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra View Post
The judicial branch is the constitutionally authorized branch to INTERPRET the constitution, not the executive branch.

So, how is it appropriate for law enforcement to deem a law unconstitutional? Sheriffs should do their job and leave the interpreting to the courts.
Courts (SCOTUS) has assumed the power to interpret the Constitution. This is a controversial subject among some. The decision in which the Court gave itself this power offers some guidelines for this duty and it doesn't create a monopoly for the Court of determining constitutionality (a little long but worth it, paragraph breaks added):
"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation.

It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
A repugnant act is void on its face and "not law".

No governmental entity is bound to enforce that illegitimate act.

A court isn't required to determine the constitutionality but it would decide whether the decision by a sheriff to refuse enforcing a law he deems repugnant is legitimate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2014, 12:15 AM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,414,762 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
It has mainly been the only constitutionally recognized law enforcement. The elected Sheriffs, not the hired guns to protect the elite, called police.
I think you should probably look at the Constitution. No where in it does it tell states how to organize their law enforcement. I am always surprised at the number of folks who pull out the Constitution to support some argument that the Constitution provides not basis for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra View Post
The judicial branch is the constitutionally authorized branch to INTERPRET the constitution, not the executive branch.

So, how is it appropriate for law enforcement to deem a law unconstitutional? Sheriffs should do their job and leave the interpreting to the courts.
Sheriffs don't have to enforce federal laws since they are state officers and not federal officers. That was what US v. Printz was about. On the other hand if the state legislature passed a law requiring sheriffs to enforce federal law that would be a different matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2014, 02:44 AM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,922,903 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Alaska does not have Sheriffs. However, we do have our Alaska Firearms Freedom Act that was enacted into law in May, 2010, which nullifies all federal laws and regulations when it concerns firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition manufactured, sold, and used wholly within the State of Alaska.

If Alaskans want to manufacture fully automatic machine guns, that the federal government knows nothing about, they can legally do so in Alaska.

Every firearm regulation imposed by the federal government does so solely on the premise that it has the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause. Since the Commerce Clause only extends to interstate or international commerce, and not intrastate commerce, the federal government has absolutely no say in the matter.

Alaska is one of eight States that have enacted similar laws. The Wyoming version of the Firearms Freedom Act goes so far as to allow for the arrest and detention of federal officers attempting to enforce federal gun control laws in the State of Wyoming.

This has more to do with States exerting their constitutional authority under the Tenth Amendment, and not about nullification. The federal government, when left unchallenged, usurps the constitutional authority of the States whenever they can. Like they have already done with education, social programs, and health care insurance.
That caveat makes you whole post null and void.

Inacting a state law is meaningless unless that statue is upheld in court. The day an Alaskan manufacturer decided to manufacture banned firearms, the state law will not keep them out of a federal court; and in no way will the State of Alaska represent the manufacturer in federal court.

The State of Alaska can file suit in Federal district court claiming that the Federal government violated thier state statue by going after the manufacturer, but it would be the State fighting for its interest not that of the manufacturer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2014, 03:22 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,161,162 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
That caveat makes you whole post null and void.

Inacting a state law is meaningless unless that statue is upheld in court. The day an Alaskan manufacturer decided to manufacture banned firearms, the state law will not keep them out of a federal court; and in no way will the State of Alaska represent the manufacturer in federal court.

The State of Alaska can file suit in Federal district court claiming that the Federal government violated thier state statue by going after the manufacturer, but it would be the State fighting for its interest not that of the manufacturer.


the problem with what you just said, is that the 2nd Amendment even outweighs the law of the federal government.

the 10th Amendment specifically needed to make an automatic weaon for use only in Alaska.

I do believe that the same kind of case was tried in TN and the feds lost there too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2014, 05:29 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,386,653 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
That caveat makes you whole post null and void.

Inacting a state law is meaningless unless that statue is upheld in court. The day an Alaskan manufacturer decided to manufacture banned firearms, the state law will not keep them out of a federal court; and in no way will the State of Alaska represent the manufacturer in federal court.

The State of Alaska can file suit in Federal district court claiming that the Federal government violated thier state statue by going after the manufacturer, but it would be the State fighting for its interest not that of the manufacturer.
That is where you are wrong. From Alaska House Bill Number 186:
"The attorney general may defend a citizen of this state who is prosecuted by the government of the United States under the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce for violation of a federal law concerning the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained within this state."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top