What makes you think that is even an option that the governor and legislature would even seriously consider?tomrkba said:It won't hold up if the state submits to Federal jurisdiction. It all depends upon how far the legislature and the governor are willing to go. If Wyoming officials are willing to face down Federal agents, then it'll have teeth....
Remember in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville. Then the intervention of a federal court in Birmingham got the four students enrolled.
That is a matter of "prosecutorial discretion." A prosecuting authority gets to decide when, where and how to enforce criminal laws. So a prosecuting authority, like the United States Justice Department may decide as a matter of policy to go easy on something like recreational or medical marijuana in a State which has legalized such, at least under some circumstances. Such a policy decision might be driven by a conclusion that enough people, particularly among an administration's constituency, find the conduct relatively benign. That might not be the case with other matters.tulsamal said:Remember when California passed a law allowing medical marijuana? And the Feds yelled and screamed that it was against the law and said they were going to shut these places down?...
Marijuana, guns, gay marriage... it's certainly going to be an interesting time we live in.
Well, truth be told here it's all about power.
Oh, and Wyoming does not succeed here, unless atleast 12 other states join it.
Frank Ettin said:What makes you think that is even an option that the governor and legislature would even seriously consider?
Remember in 1960 when U. S. Marshals escorted a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Remember in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.
Remember in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville. Then the intervention of a federal court in Birmingham got the four students enrolled.
On one hand that is correct. But the point is the lengths to which the federal government can go and has gone to enforce the Supremacy Clause.Evergreen said:...From an ethical and practical standpoint I can make a comment of your post. ....
Basically, the Southern states took away the very same basic rights that the Federal government now seeks to remove from us. These are Constitutional rights. I find your examples very interesting, because it seems like the situation is totally reversed. ...
Judicial review is really on much more solid ground than that. Actually, it effectively flows from the Constitution.Sambo82 said:...Some here have cited caselaw to prove otherwise, but we need to remember that the power of judicial review was one that the Supreme Court foisted upon itself in Marbury v. Madison. So essentially the Supreme Court decided that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of the Constitution...
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.....
Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,....
....It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.....
Not just the federal government. Look at the law just passed in New York and the law being introduced in Massachusetts. Consider the existing laws in Illinois, New Jersey and California -- all more draconian in some respects than federal law.Evergreen said:...Perhaps the tides have turned in this situation? Basically, the Federal government is seeking to disarm the population to the dismay of large number of American citizens...
Frank, when I was talking about the State, I was referring to the state of Wyoming, not all the states in the USA, which, as you stated, have implemented even more draconian laws than even what the Federal government is attempting. In a perfect world, the Federal government should be coming in to help states abolish anti-constitutional laws, not to abolish constitutional laws, such as those guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I'm hoping if this insanity ends, that in fact the Supreme Court, like Heller v. McDonald will rule against the new anti-2A laws passed in New York.Not just the federal government. Look at the law just passed in New York and the law being introduced in Massachusetts. Consider the existing laws in Illinois, New Jersey and California -- all more draconian in some respects than federal law.
And with regard to judicial review, should the Supreme Court not have exercised its constitutionally assigned authority for the purpose of deciding Heller and McDonald?
I think I understand the point you are making about the Supreme Court exercising its authority over a dispute between the Federal and the State governments. To be honest, the whole Supreme Court system is something I never entirely understood. What happens if the Supreme Court itself supports an unconstitutional law? Then does it become constitutional?
What if the State of Wyoming and a majority of its populace as well as other states resist this ruling, because they believe it is unconstitutional? I do realize this is a double edge sword here and, as with Jim Crow, states can abuse power. Is the Supreme Court the only check and balance between the abuse of power from the Federal and State governments?
Evergreen said:...To be honest, the whole Supreme Court system is something I never entirely understood. What happens if the Supreme Court itself supports an unconstitutional law? Then does it become constitutional?...
The real point is that as a matter of law the Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional.
Under the doctrine of stare decisis the ruling in Marbury is the law. Marbury has also been around for about 210 years, so it's pretty well settled law.Sambo82 said:Really we're just going to keep going in circles about whether or not the Supreme Court really is the sole possessor of that power simply because they say they are (the Marbury v. Madison ruling)...
In your opinion, perhaps. But why do you have the final say on what is or is not constitutional? What about people who disagree with your conclusion that a particular decision of the Supreme Court is "a blatant violation of it"? Why are you correct and they wrong?Sambo82 said:...In all actuality the Constitution is an easy read; it's not coded or beyond comprehension and yes, the Supreme Court does make rulings that are a blatant violation of it...
And you decide what the Constitution actually says? What about people who disagree with your opinion about what the Constitution actually says? Why are you correct and they wrong?Sambo82 said:...The Supreme Court may possess the power to make something "Constitutional" in the sense that they authorize Federal agents to kill or imprison a citizen for violating it, but it's not "Constitutional" in the sense that it is actually inline with or changes what the Constitution actually says...
What you're talking about is the notion that "might makes right", but that has fundamentally been discarded in our society. We are a nation of laws, and we abide by laws. (And we at THR do not encourage, condone or advocate violating laws -- thus be advised that any such will not be tolerated here).Sambo82 said:...If resisting those laws is "illegal" in that sense, it is no more "illegal" than what happened on the grounds of Lexington and Concord. That's the funny thing about laws; they really only exist as far as armed men have the power to enforce them. So whereas an action against a government's laws may be "illegal", it simply takes only an effective use of force to make it "legal"....
No doubt some people do disagree. But so what?Sambo82 said:Really we're just going to keep going in circles about whether or not the Supreme Court really is the sole possessor of that power simply because they say they are (the Marbury v. Madison ruling). Many people in this nation would simply disagree....
In your opinion, perhaps. But why do you have the final say on what is or is not constitutional? What about people who disagree with your conclusion that a particular decision of the Supreme Court is "a blatant violation of it"? Why are you correct and they wrong?
What you're talking about is the notion that "might makes right", but that has fundamentally been discarded in our society.
(And we at THR do not encourage, condone or advocate violating laws -- thus be advised that any such will not be tolerated here).
Your opinion on such questions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
You're welcome to live in your alternate universe. In the meantime, here in the real world
A court's opinion on matters of law, including whether or not a law is constitutional, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such questions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
You're welcome to live in your alternate universe. In the meantime, here in the real world courts are making rulings and causing things to happen.
Our legal system is as it is. It represents at this point several hundred years of evolution. It continues to evolve.aeriedad said:...You rightly point out that our society rejects the principle of "might makes right," but then you also tell us we're in an alternate universe for objecting to the Judicial Branch's expansion of Federal power (a.k.a., might makes right). It's true that Common Law informed the Founders during the Constitutional Convention,...
The Supreme Court was assigned by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution the judicial power of the United States, and that judicial power, as assigned by the Founding Fathers, extended to cases arising under the Constitution.Sambo82 said:...The fact of the matter is, is that they weren't granted the power of judicial review in the Constitution, they just assumed it. Why are they correct and I am wrong, other than they just say so?...
....It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case...
Except you reject the rule of law as it exists under our system and instead would place your judgement above that of our courts and legal processes.Sambo82 said:...For better or worse, that's the nature of the beast. If I place an M16 bolt and FCG in my Ar 15, men with guns will utilize force and either A: kill me or B: take me to prison. So I reject the claim that I am the one advocating violence and you, as a proponent of this system, are not....
It's actually Article V (emphasis added):billinms said:...The last article(6 ?) says that the states can petition Congress for a Constitutional Convention (2/3 of said states doing so). In the past, when the feds made a law completely repugnant to the people, the states started a petition for a constitutional convention and when the number of states reached close to the 2/3s required the federal government backed off. I know of at two times this has been done in the past....
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...