NRA sits out gunfight with feds

[SMS]

As far as whether a "state's right" trumps a "nation's right," I would say that the national government has no right to pass unconstitutional legislation. If it does, the states are certainly justified in resisting. As far as who has the right to interpret the Constitution, the states have as good a claim on that as anybody.

Through what authority? You are almost convincing me, but I don't see what authority a single state has to deem that a federal law, validated by the judicial branch, under the authority of the Constitution, is unconstitutional.

Perhaps if there is a question of constitutionality that has not yet met the challenge of the Supreme Court...but if it has how can a state override that? To me, that is where Nullification falls flat, the states abdicated some power to the federal government by ratifying the Constitution, and if a particular law is born and validated within the Federal system created by that Constitution I don't see how they can get out of it short of convening a Constitutional Convention or secession....both of which are very extreme. (almost as extreme as the County Sheriff fantasy posted earlier, LOL)

 

[henschman]

Through what authority? You are almost convincing me, but I don't see what authority a single state has to deem that a federal law, validated by the judicial branch, under the authority of the Constitution, is unconstitutional.

Perhaps if there is a question of constitutionality that has not yet met the challenge of the Supreme Court...but if it has how can a state override that? To me, that is where Nullification falls flat, the states abdicated some power to the federal government by ratifying the Constitution, and if a particular law is born and validated within the Federal system created by that Constitution I don't see how they can get out of it short of convening a Constitutional Convention or secession....both of which are very extreme. (almost as extreme as the County Sheriff fantasy posted earlier, LOL)

The supremacy clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution and all laws passed pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land (and therefore they trump any conflicting state laws). The problem is when the national government passes laws that are NOT pursuant to the Constitution, i.e. laws it has no authority to pass. The Constitution does not give the authority to determine when a law is unconstitutional to anyone in particular... and we all know that any powers not specifically granted to the national government or any of its constituent parts are retained by the states. Of course the states ceded some of their powers when they joined the union, but this power is not among the enumarated powers which were ceded.

If the national government passed a law that was blatantly unconstitutional, such as one making it illegal to say bad things about Congress, it would not suddenly make it constitutional if the Supreme Court ruled that it was. All that means is that the Supreme Court says its constitutional, and all inferior federal courts would be bound rule in accordance with their opinion. In this instance, as with any other unconstitutional law, the states would be perfectly justified in nullifying the law within their boundaries, making it illegal for state employees to help with enforcing it, and/or protecting their citizens from federal attempts to enforce it.

How "extreme" the strategy is would depend on how far the state government would be willing to take it. In any case, it is not as extreme as secession... full-on nullification coupled with interposition ought to be the last resort of a state to protect its citizens before leaving the union altogether (another power that was not withheld from the states in the Constitution).

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The supremacy clause of the Constitution says that the Constitution and all laws passed pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land (and therefore they trump any conflicting state laws). The problem is when the national government passes laws that are NOT pursuant to the Constitution, i.e. laws it has no authority to pass. The Constitution does not give the authority to determine when a law is unconstitutional to anyone in particular... and we all know that any powers not specifically granted to the national government or any of its constituent parts are retained by the states. Of course the states ceded some of their powers when they joined the union, but this power is not among the enumarated powers which were ceded.

If the national government passed a law that was blatantly unconstitutional, such as one making it illegal to say bad things about Congress, it would not suddenly make it constitutional if the Supreme Court ruled that it was. All that means is that the Supreme Court says its constitutional, and all inferior federal courts would be bound rule in accordance with their opinion. In this instance, as with any other unconstitutional law, the states would be perfectly justified in nullifying the law within their boundaries, making it illegal for state employees to help with enforcing it, and/or protecting their citizens from federal attempts to enforce it.

How "extreme" the strategy is would depend on how far the state government would be willing to take it. In any case, it is not as extreme as secession... full-on nullification coupled with interposition ought to be the last resort of a state to protect its citizens before leaving the union altogether (another power that was not withheld from the states in the Constitution).

You remind me of ... me!

Woody