States' Rights Indeed
Look what passed the Georgia Senate...
Too bad the House didn't pass it. That would have set up an interesting dilemma with FEDGOV.
Critical Massholes
A bunch of...well you know...working to achieve a critical mass in knowledge
Critical Massholes: States' Rights Indeed
why? why didnt the state house pass that? and how do we get something like this in Tennessee? id like to see passage of similar resolutions in the individual states, then see the governors kick out all unconstitutional federal agencies that arent involved in carrying out the tasks so stated in the constitution.
Reply to this
I read the thing, and it has a lot of sound and fury, but couldn't really get a sense of what it was really resolving or trying to do.
Some things that jumped out:
"and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals."
? What does that mean? libel has never been a federal action... and what does "false religion" stand for?
"all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void"
-yeah, it's called the first amendment, and states try to step over that rule all the time and would ge away with it if not for the 14th amendment, which is still on the books and incorporates the bill of rights...
and there's lots of other strange stuff in there that doesn't really make sense, but in the final resolution of 6 things that lead to "nullification" (I see ol' Jackson riding down to hang some folks again...), which says no martial law or slavery or drafts except for war, or violating first amendment (again, a key part of the current constitution) it says:
Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition
So does that mean you can have any type of arms? Like mustard gas? Howitzers? Tanks? Nukes?
If it ever does pass, we should form a joint stock org similar to the East India Company, arm ourselves as befitting a compnay of means, and proceed to filibuster, like William Walker
Reply to this
I fail to see how the 14th amendment can impose
ANYTHING on a particular state. In the purest sense, that is not how the Constitution works - for those of you who believe that the Constitution is a valid "contract."
Federal supremacy my arse. Sic simper tyrannis
Reply to this
the 14th imposes standards of due process and equal protection, and is used to actually keep states and local governments from infringing on the rights of its citizens.
For example, if you don't think it imposes anything on the states, then you're arguing the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states and state and local governments can enact restrictive gun laws.
The big deal about Heller, a recent SC ruling, is that it told a City (DC) you can't restrict gun rights so much that people are basically not allowed to own handguns.
The key text is: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
From a liberty standpoint, it's a good thing. The biggest expansion of government power is through the Commerce Clause (aka Congress regulating all the eomic activiity under the sun), which states, basically "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Which has led to rulings (typically spported by both parties), that Congress can regulate someone growing one plant because of that plants potential effect on interstate commerce (said plant being marijuana).
As for the Constitituion being a valid contract that you can't back out of, absent the joint abolishment of the Constituiton in the same way that constituitional amendments are approved, that was settled in the landmark case of Union v. Confederacy, which was heavily litigated from 1861-1865.
The more practical effect of this ruling is that when you lose an election, you can't take your ball and go home, as the other team will call Shennanigans.
Reply to this
i still dont see how the 14th would impose fed laws onto the states. it seems to be a reiteration of the constitution's declaration that this is what the fed can do, this is what no one (fed or state) can do, and all else is reserved to states or the people.
Reply to this
correct, the feds actually can't impose their laws on the "states" (i.e. state or muni gov). The states are just required to not mess with the liberty of the people (like 1st amendment and no cruel/unusual punishment), or deny them due process (they have a right to a fair hearing before you can take away their life, liberty, or property). State's don't need to enforce federal law, though. If a state doesn't want to prosecute, it's up to the feds (FBI, US attorney, etc.) to do the policing and prosecuting.
Take Mary Jane, for example. There are still harsh federal laws against it. But in 15 or so states, it's approved medically. The state and local govs have no obligation to do anything to enforce the federal law against it. The local police can help out if they want to, but the feds can't force them to do anything. And in plenty of cities out here, the police still enjoyed riding with the feds to go trash a pot dispensiary that might have been operating within state law. Although sometimes they get sued for it in State Court.
It works the same with any other federal law.
The feds bribe people, though. And make grants available to everyone if they follow the federal regulation, and they can deny the $ to the states that don't meet the conditions of acceptance ( the so called "strings" attached to the $).
Biggest example is 21 as drinking age. MADD got Congress and Regan to make the change to the Fed. Hwy appropriation bill (won't someone think of the children!), and then if the states wanted to get their share of funds for highway construction/repair (usually state pays some and feds pay some for the interstae hwys), they needed to go to 21. If they didn't, they lost 10% of the federal funds.
They feds kept it at 10% becaue there was some concern that by cutting off more, it would be too coercive. The law went into affect in '84, and the last state buckled in '88. South Dakota actually sued, but the SC, led by "conservative" Rheinquist, siad it was within
the power of Congress to withhold federal funds in pursuit of national policies.
Only O'Conner (pegged as a moderate conservative) and Brennan (huge liberal) dissented. On state's rights grounds.
Reply to this