59 replies to this topic

[aztek]

i always thought you need to be citizen to vote, not just have DL. guess i was wrong

[Kafkaesque]

aztek, on 28 January 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

i always thought you need to be citizen to vote, not just have DL. guess i was wrong

Immigrants allowed to vote through loopholes means more voters for the Democrats.

Edited by Eonwe, 28 January 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[Hasina]

The states have to follow Federal law and the Constitution while the Federal government has to follow the Constitution, the Second Amendment says that it 'shall not be infringed'. Any gun control laws infringe on this Amendment. The Federal government is acting unconstitutionally.

[aztek]

Hasina, on 28 January 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

The states have to follow Federal law and the Constitution while the Federal government has to follow the Constitution, the Second Amendment says that it 'shall not be infringed'. Any gun control laws infringe on this Amendment. The Federal government is acting unconstitutionally.

true, but what if state and federal laws contradict. like medical marijuana laws in ca.state says it is legal, than feds come say it is not, destroy plants, arrest\fine legal (according to the state) owners.

[AsteroidX]

It use to be State Law trumped Federal Law but that was changed some years ago.

[Hasina]

aztek, on 28 January 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

true, but what if state and federal laws contradict. like medical marijuana laws in ca.state says it is legal, than feds come say it is not, destroy plants, arrest\fine legal (according to the state) owners.

AsteroidX, on 28 January 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

It use to be State Law trumped Federal Law but that was changed some years ago.

'State Laws and U.S. Constitution
Because of the Supremacy Clause, state laws cannot supersede the constitutional rights afforded all U.S. citizens under federal law. No state law can abolish or reduce the rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution. For example, Article 17 of the Constitution expressly forbids forcible slavery, and declares it a right of every U.S. citizen to be free of forced servitude. State law therefore cannot allow slavery at the state level, as this would violate residents’ federal constitutional rights.'

Edited by Hasina, 28 January 2013 - 10:04 PM.

[Kafkaesque]

Hasina, on 28 January 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

The states have to follow Federal law and the Constitution while the Federal government has to follow the Constitution, the Second Amendment says that it 'shall not be infringed'. Any gun control laws infringe on this Amendment. The Federal government is acting unconstitutionally.

That is definitely one way to interpret it. Many Sheriffs across the country see this course of action by Washington as unconstitutional, and as a result are willing to implement precautions such as arresting and imprisoning federal agents who try to enforce these policies. That is the approach they have taken in Texas. What Virginia will do, I cannot say. But I can say that I will be paying very close attention to what happens within my state.

AsteroidX, on 28 January 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

It use to be State Law trumped Federal Law but that was changed some years ago.

After the Civil War. States rights were essentially dismantled under a national government.

[aztek]

yes, on paper it is how it should be, but in reality, there are plenty of gray areas, ans loopholes. it doesn't really help you if feds arrest you for something state says you can do. you are arrested.

[Hasina]

Eonwe, on 28 January 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

After the Civil War. States rights were essentially dismantled under a national government.

aztek, on 28 January 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

yes, on paper it is how it should be, but in reality, there are plenty of gray areas, ans loopholes. it doesn't really help you if feds arrest you for something state says you can do. you are arrested.

Supremacy Clause
'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'

Edited by Hasina, 28 January 2013 - 10:11 PM.

[aztek]

yea, sounds good, however, i don't believe that is how it is in real world.

[AsteroidX]

So many State Judges and Law enforcement are already in defiance of the federal agenda ala medical marijuana and legalized marijuana.

[Kafkaesque]

Hasina, on 28 January 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Supremacy Clause
'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.'

And I quote myself, as posted at 4:40 PM on the first page of this topic...

"The bill was approved by the Virginia House of Delegates. Someone compared it to nullification; of course, one could cite the Supremacy Clause in the case of a state exercising the 10th amendment. However, the bill does not seem to be nullification at all - it's more of a, "If you try to enforce this on our land, good luck." It's essentially a declaration of challenge to Washington."

[Hasina]

Eonwe, on 28 January 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

And I quote myself, as posted at 4:40 PM on the first page of this topic...

"The bill was approved by the Virginia House of Delegates. Someone compared it to nullification; of course, one could cite the Supremacy Clause in the case of a state exercising the 10th amendment. However, the bill does not seem to be nullification at all - it's more of a, "If you try to enforce this on our land, good luck." It's essentially a declaration of challenge to Washington."

Oh noes! A challenge! It's still against the Federal government. Look, I'm on y'all's side, what saying that what the Federal government is doing is unconstitutional, BUT at the same time Virginia is saying 'try to enforce FEDERAL law on STATE land, we'll say no you can't', that's against the bloody Supremacy Clause.

Why doesn't Virginia bring up the point that the Federal government is infringing on the Second Amendment, which it says that it can't be. Virginia should sue the US.

Edited by Hasina, 28 January 2013 - 10:19 PM.

[aztek]

Hasina, on 28 January 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

that's against the bloody Supremacy Clause.

Virginia should sue the US.

it is, but they feel if feds can go agains constitution, they can go against feds. can't say i disagree with them.
they could but only if they 101% sure they will win, cuz if they loose, it will be loss to all, not just VA.

Edited by aztek, 28 January 2013 - 10:27 PM.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I think what Virginia is doing is giving themselves the legal backing to enforce their Constitutional Rights - which really is all the legal backing they should need - should push come to shove and at the same time saying "we're going to have no part of what you're doing".
Now, what's the process for Admendments to the Constitution? Referenda? If they want a law that overrides or challenges what's enshrined in the constitution then the Federal Government needs to do that.