NRA sits out gunfight with feds

[SMS]

Ours was vetoed. But if these other States feel the need to do so, it really doesn't bother me. Who knows their needs better than their citizens? Not I.

I absolutely agree, but until I see something that shows me it has more than a snow ball's chance in hell of passing the test I just see it as a waste of time and effort.

Sure you gotta go for the long ball sometimes, but I think there are so many other grass roots efforts we could be taking on instead.

 

[henschman]

That would be Article III Sections one and two mostly...it's called "subject matter jurisdiction". The federal courts, the Supreme Court being the highest court in that system, have jurisdiction over Constitutional issues.

Article III

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Could you point out to me where it says that the Supreme Court has the sole authority to interpret the Constitution?

You know, James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," didn't believe the Supreme Court had that power... he wrote about it extensively in several of the Federalist papers, and he and Thomas Jefferson authored the first acts of nullification by the states in 1798.

What you're thinking about is not "subject matter jurisdiction" -- it is called "the power of judicial review," and its not in the Constitution either. That comes from Marbury v. Madison, a Supreme Court case.

I asked "who gave the Supreme Court the sole power to interpret the Constitution?" The answer is The Supreme Court. Basically they claim they have the sole authority to interpret the Constitution because they say they do.

 

[crazy8]

All federal courts have the authority to interpret the the constitution,how ever it's ultimately the supreme court that has the last say.If a circuit court striKes down a law,It's struck down, but the losing side will always say "they're wrong", we want SCOTUS TO GIVE US A DEFINATIVE ANSWER.

 

[LightningCrash]

I absolutely agree, but until I see something that shows me it has more than a snow ball's chance in hell of passing the test I just see it as a waste of time and effort.

Sure you gotta go for the long ball sometimes, but I think there are so many other grass roots efforts we could be taking on instead.

No disagreements there. It seems everyone has to have their own white whale, though.

 

[henschman]

All federal courts have the authority to interpret the the constitution,how ever it's ultimately the supreme court that has the last say.If a circuit court striKes down a law,It's struck down, but the losing side will always say "they're wrong", we want SCOTUS TO GIVE US A DEFINATIVE ANSWER.

That would certainly be one rationale for giving the supreme court that exclusive power, but the fact is that the Constitution does not give it to them.

They are given "all judicial power," and that would certainly imply the ability to interpret the Constitution (and every other federal law), but the idea that they are the ONLY ones who can interpret the constitution, or that the States cannot interpret it, is completely absent from the Constitution.

 

[SMS]

Yes anyone can interpret the Constitution, but under under our system of law, the federal court system, and the high court, are the only ones who are empowered to make Constitutional interpretations.

 

[MadDawg]

I'm not sure if you are purposefully mis-stating the authority or not.

The Supreme Court doesnt interpret the Constitution, they rule on if a new law is Constitutional. They interpret law.

BIG DIFFERENCE

Our nation often fights between the proported will of the people and the Constitution. Politicians LOVE the Supreme Court because they can pose and rant, pass poorly thought out laws and rely on the Supposedly Independant Supreme Court to stop the insanity giving those who must seek votes cover.

I certainly dont want politicians deciding what the Constitution allows.

Sometimes some folks get wrapped up in talk radio fantasies, like Texas can succede if they want, or income tax wasnt passed legally. Good rants for consuming a few frosty adult beverages but not much past that.

 

[pills510]

Sure am glad someone had the stroke to hit the long ball with DC v Heller which most thought had no way in HELL of passing.

My basketball coach always said "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

 

[SMS]

Sure am glad someone had the stroke to hit the long ball with DC v Heller which most thought had no way in HELL of passing.

My basketball coach always said "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

Sure, but Heller was about the 2nd Amendment...The "firearms freedom" laws are more about state's rights and federal jurisdiction over commerce. So that's apples and oranges really.

That's a much bigger hill to climb, and there are many other avenues to chip away at it...IMHO. It might seem like a good place to start, but you have to start with an issue that resounds with ALL the voters, not just the gun crowd.

I'm not sure if you are purposefully mis-stating the authority or not.

The Supreme Court doesnt interpret the Constitution, they rule on if a new law is Constitutional. They interpret law.
.

They most certainly do, they have to in order to determine if a law is Constitutional.

 

[PFXD 45]

Well lets see.....the GOA was responsible for the complete upheavel of Congress in 1994...no,that was the NRA.The GOA was responsible for the defeat of Mike Synar(second only to Chuckie Schumer in his gun stance) by Tom Coburn.....no,that was the NRA.The GOA strikes fear into the hearts of political anti gunners......no that's the NRA also.As a matter of fact the only thing I've seen from the GOA is letters asking for money.If you want to support them,good do so but don't put them in the same league with the NRA,it's not even close. Steve

I think if you go back and look some, the GOA actually writes a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo for the NRA. People need to understand that it is not the members of the NRA that compromise it is the higher ups. I am not a member anymore because of that fact. They help sponsor the 68 ban. ECT ECT.

What I have found is when you talk about the NRA, people think (that are members) you are talking about them. Not the case.

Remember there are no bad crews, only bad leaders.(G.I. Jane).. Watching as I am typing....LOL