|
joether -> RE: Nullification of Fed Laws by States (2/26/2015 5:51:58 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
In many cases, states can not pass laws that superseded the Federal Government and/or the US Constitution. Republicans have tried it a few times, and failed. However, in places were the federal law is not exact or 'covering' there is room for states to decide how concepts play out (i.e. the 10th amendment). Its one thing to create a law that protects 'net neutrality' in a state. Since the federal government as a whole (not counting the FCC's release today) has not weighed in on he matter and established laws. Its another for a state to say 'abortion is illegal' or 'no federal gun laws are enforced here'. There was that issue with a couple of screw balls that wanted to shoot down drone copters used by the feds for a variety of does, and going so far as to make it legal. Well, they found once they did it, they would get fined and possibly thrown in jail.
Arizona was not trying to help the Fed out over immigration. They were setting up their own 'passport' system that was draconian in nature. The joke of adding N and I before and after _ A Z _ , was due to this police of Arizona's state government body. The matter was put down, because states can not dictate foreign policy to the federal government. What those in Arizona should have done, is press for realistic and logical changes at the federal level. Even going so far as to make a deal with Congressional Democrats on another issue. For example, if those along the Southern Border with Mexico had issued a compromise with the President and Democrats. Say, one that is attached to the passing of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. A 'carrier' that would place more fencing and manpower to operate; they could have gotten it in many cases. But, conservatives are irrationally stupid most of the time, and didnt do it. They had this amazing opportunity to get something they wanted, and they PISSED IT AWAY!
Granted, movements to change the federal stance on something starts at the local level and grows from there. Removing anti-gay marriage laws is a good example of this 'grass roots' activism. Firearm advocates on the other hand have a steep up hill battle. As often many of their methods, thoughts, and considerations pace them at odds with other Americans that are not stupid, dimwitted, or foolish. If firearm advocates want something, they better be ready to compromise qute well to get it. The fact that they have not gotten far shows their wiliness to make a compromise.
Unless they have passed a new law what the Montana law said was that if a firearm was made in state and sold instate Federal law didn't apply. The justification was that firearms laws were based on the interstate commerce clause. No interstate commerce, no justification.
As for AZ all they were doing was enforcing Federal law, not overriding it.
Colorado on the other hand nullified Federal pot laws.
First off, Montana could pass the law it wanted to. It was done to score political points by Republicans to its base. Nothing more. Enforcing that law is where the issue comes undone. Montana is demanding the federal government obey its viewpoints, or else! Could you imagine a liberal state demanding the federal government do things it wanted, because it pass a law to score political points with its base. Would you have a problem with it? Of course you would! Which is why the practice is not allowed. Its the Supremacy Clause in effect.
Arizona was demanding the Federal Government ignore the US Constitution, because it was inconvenient to the local Republican/Tea Party. When someone is taken into custody by law enforcement, they are entitled to all the same protections under the law as you and me. If they are accused of being an illegal alien, they have a right to a lawyer and court. Arizona wanted to....skip...a few steps. That an assuming anyone that was not white needed to prove their innocence rather than the government (that would be Arizona) has to prove guilt. All this was done for political points with Republican/Tea Party voters; not, because Arizona was trying to help the Fed out.
Again, a state can pass and create laws that may place it at odds with the Federal Government. That is why we have a Judicial branch of government. That organization hears the arguments from the state and federal lawyers on the issue, and makes a ruling. I'm not saying whether I agree with Colorado's action or not here. Simply explaining the underlying process. Perhaps making Colorado a 'test' location for allowing similar laws at the federal level to be made. So the state figures out what works and doesn't work, before taking to a national stage. That is what was done with the Affordable Care Act. A program was devised and instituted in Massachusetts. Its worked very well since. It has its problems, but nothing that cant be fixed with study.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Firearms advocates have compromised but as soon as they do it is declared to be a start so why bother.
The problem is....how...they push legislation. That the majority of them are trying in earnest and honesty to make a fair deal happen. Its their more...extreme...elements that then take the material and put a 'political bent' to it. What comes out, is what the public views: something that is 1/3rd intimidating, 1/3rd threatening, and 1/3 irrational/insane. An it has always undermined firearm advocates pressing for reasonable changes at the federal level. Granted, the 'left' have similar problems with its extremists.
I've stated it before, and do so again: the extremes of the firearm debate in the nation, control the debate. When gun owners and concern citizens, sit down, discuss things, and make honest/good compromises; we'll get good laws regarding firearms. Most Americans are in favor of background checks on firearms. Likewise, tighter violations for people that miss use firearms in a negligent or careless manner. That it could be said firearms can and have been used for the self-defense of the individual. What I'm saying here, is there is plenty of room for gun owners and concern citizens to meet, and make a better set of policies. But that can not happen, until gun owners put a muzzle on gun nuts; and for concern citizens to do the same for gun controllers.
I think we have even tried to discuss several different things on the threads (related to firearms). Ever notice the gun nuts and gun controllers coming out to disrupt and undermine the threads? They (gun nuts and gun controllers), have EVERYTHING to lose with gun owners and concern citizens getting together (whom in my humble opinion is the majority of Americans), to discuss better firearm laws. The sort of laws the American society can agree, knowing the potential pitfalls and problems that will come about. It takes gun owners understanding the desires and fears of concern citizens, and likewise vise versa to make this happen.
|
|
|
|
