Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Drayno

Virginia stands in defiance

60 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Virginia should go ahead and say that the Federal government is doing so. It would make this issue far clearer.

But, knowing politicians, none of them will have the balls to do so.

I hope Virginia doesn't back down, but simultaneously I hope this doesn't escalate into another Civil War.

Of course, the Federal government would have to come in and try to forcibly take civilians guns for that to happen.

And whatever God save their souls if that happens.

You don't know how many Federal soldiers would get obliterated by camouflaged sharpshooters in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the terms "Federal Soldier" and "State Soldier" will ever leap outside of worse-case-scenario statements...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the terms "Federal Soldier" and "State Soldier" will ever leap outside of worse-case-scenario statements...

Frankly, for the sake of the Union, and the lives that inhabit it, I hope not.

Any legitimate schism or divide is an unwelcome one.. But in the case of division and battle, we could see the terms "state soldiers", or "insurrectionists" thrown around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we just keep our heads screwed on straight and remember we're all Americans and can actually sit down and discuss things, right? No, it's much easier for both sides to just prostrate themselves in their own positions and take it.

Federal: people want action! Infringe upon an amendment instead of going through proper procedure.

State: federal government wants to infringe on the Constitution?! Instead of pointing that out, I'll do the same!

Ah, Constitution, you're really just a fancy table cover nowadays, aren't ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we just keep our heads screwed on straight and remember we're all Americans and can actually sit down and discuss things, right? No, it's much easier for both sides to just prostrate themselves in their own positions and take it.

Federal: people want action! Infringe upon an amendment instead of going through proper procedure.

State: federal government wants to infringe on the Constitution?! Instead of pointing that out, I'll do the same!

Ah, Constitution, you're really just a fancy table cover nowadays, aren't ya?

I mean, you don't see me calling every one to arms and sounding the trumpet.

I am for solving any problem diplomatically. In the case of my great-great-great grandfather's first cousin, Robert E. Lee, it was the same.

Lee remained neutral and only sided with Virginia since it was his home state. Did he want war? Of course not. No sane person wants war.

The Constitution is undermined in many ways.. But in order to ensure its continuance, there has to be legitimate cooperation between the state and Federal governments - and there has to be a respect between the both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Im certain my 12th grandfather James Winthrop the founder of Boston in the 1630's would say. "Im rolling over in my grave"

Edited by AsteroidX
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Im certain my 12th grandfather James Winthrop the founder of Boston in the 1630's would say. "Im rolling over in my grave"

The same goes for my ancestor who was in the Culpeper Minutemen and in Washington's Dragoons.

And his son who fought in the War of 1812.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

Personally, I'm all for states rights. That might just be me practicing ancient beliefs, but the states created the Federal government.

The Federal government was created to create a common currency, to protect popular sovereignty, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, to provide a standing army, provide information through a Federal post system, etc. The people were meant to protect themselves in their liberty and ability to handle firearms - and also ensure that the Separation of Powers was continuous in the branches of government. However, that Separation of Powers has effectively been sliced down by the stroke of a pen, thanks to the power of and existence of Executive Orders. When a president can just merrily bypass Congress whenever he wants to, that's a problem.

Of course, Obama isn't the first president to use EO's, It isn't a new thing. But after the Civil War, the presidency became more imperial. Hell, even Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase is a good example - even though Jefferson was a big supporter of states rights and nullification.

Edited by Eonwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here comes the old 'Divide & Rule'. Also, inflammatory topics like gun-control and immigration distract Joe Public's attention away from what nasty little plots our masters are cooking up behind our backs!

On the contrary, many are of the belief that these are all parts of their nasty plots. I am.

So basically, a state has outright said "we don't care what the Federal Government says, we're going to stand by the Constitution".

I don't know if this is brave, moral, stupid, insane or just plain laying the groundwork for Civil War II.

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.

My state constitution says this:

Right to Bear Arms

Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

If the Feds were to repeal the second amendment that would render the PA amendment illegal. Right? But the PA one is about protecting not only self but the state, presumably against an out of control federal government. As well thought out as these documents were there still can be much confusion, catch 22's and just plain going round in circles trying to figure out the defacto answer to certain circumstances.

BTW, there is no mention of hunting in this amendment or whatever it's called in the state constitution. State constitutions are rarely mentioned but they must serve some purpose of empowerment over the Feds. In my curiosity I found this site containing most if not all state constitutions if you care to browse your own. http://www.usconstitution.net/stateconst.html

Edited by -Mr_Fess-
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, many are of the belief that these are all parts of their nasty plots. I am.

My state constitution says this:

Right to Bear Arms

Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

If the Feds were to repeal the second amendment that would render the PA amendment illegal. Right? But the PA one is about protecting not only self but the state, presumably against an out of control federal government. As well thought out as these documents were there still can be much confusion, catch 22's and just plain going round in circles trying to figure out the defacto answer to certain circumstances.

BTW, there is no mention of hunting in this amendment or whatever it's called in the state constitution. State constitutions are rarely mentioned but they must serve some purpose of empowerment over the Feds. In my curiosity I found this site containing most if not all state constitutions if you care to browse your own. http://www.usconstit...stateconst.html

Great post. State constitutions are definitely important, in my opinion.

From the Virginia Constitution: http://constitution....s.virginia.gov/

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

The way I view it, on a Federal level, the Supreme Court discerned the Second Amendment allows individuals to bare arms.

Since the militia is the people - and since the people have the ability to own guns, as granted by the Second Amendment - backed by the Supreme Court, and in Virginia, the Virginian Constitution - the militia is any one who owns a gun. A well regulated militia is necessary to the survival of a free state, yes; however, since we don't have a regulated militia, that does not mean that the militia does not exist. If gun owners exist, the militia exists. And since the purpose of the militia was made clear in the Federalist Papers No. 29, the Second Amendment provides the basis for the militia to be armed - the Federalist Papers No. 29 provides the reason for the militia to exist in the following text:

http://www.constitut...ed/federa29.htm

"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?"

It can be understood then, that the militia are meant to take up arms, no matter how hopeless the expedition, to expel those intrenched in power.

So, it can be understood that ordinary people are tasked with overthrowing tyranny. The opening lines of the Declaration of Independence only reinforce this notion. Insomuch, it can be understood that our Founders wanted the sovereign people to have the ability to abolish destructive governments.

Edited by Eonwe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power[/b], and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?"[/color][/size][/font][/color]

That's a pretty deep line. Just Vengeance. Those guys meant business.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole gun control drama is just another stitch pulled out of the fabric that makes the county whole. We're becoming more and more divided. Immigration will be next probably.

That is the plan. Remember, Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky and everything is going according to Saul's plan.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty deep line. Just Vengeance. Those guys meant business.

No doubt about it bud. They valued freedom.

Virginia is a filled with much history. It does not easily ignore its part in shaping America. For that, I am thankful to have been born here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

You need a DL to vote?

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.

I think it's a beautiful precedent started by a wonderful state. Let's hope there are copycats across the country very soon. I suspect there are similar initiatives already in process in other states where gun rights are taken very seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregons Bill of Rights:

Section 23. Habeas corpus. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in case of rebellion, or invasion the public safety require it.—

Section 24. Treason. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid or comfort.—No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or confession in open Court.—

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

also pertinent to the question of seizure of private arms:

Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. —
Edited by AsteroidX
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how it says the military will be strictly in the civil power....I read that to mean that if the military operates within the state then it is no longer a federal entity but a state entity..could be wrong but thats how I read that part of article 27 in the Oregon BOR.

The other states people have listed seem to have akin writing in them. Written before the Civil War and protecting the States from the change that made the States pay homage to The Federal Government...

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oregons Bill of Rights:

also pertinent to the question of seizure of private arms:

Section 9 is a copy of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The military IS subordinate to civil power in our country. It's refreshing to see state constitutions reaffirming that though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im curious though if the Federal Constitution Amendment that made the States Law less then Federal law in this case does this negate that part of the Oregon Bill of Rights or is it still a valid part of our State Constitution. Im not that educated in these points.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im curious though if the Federal Constitution Amendment that made the States Law less then Federal law in this case does this negate that part of the Oregon Bill of Rights or is it still a valid part of our State Constitution. Im not that educated in these points.

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.