The other day I posted a guest post about the new gun case from the Supreme Court. I drive my tractor in pearls... Asked, "Do the people of the state have the right to run their state as they see fit?" The answer to the question is no. Here is how we got there.
Article IV, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitution states that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land." This created the american hierarchy of law. At the top is the US Constitution. Anything which violates the US Constitution is void. Next is Federal law. Anything, except the US Constitution, which violates Federal law is void. Next, State Constitutions, which can only invalidate state law, and finally state law. It is important to note that Federal law can invalidate state constitutional provisions. For example, if California decided to amend its constitution to make controlled substances legal, controlled substances would still be illegal under federal law, and thus, illegal in California.
For a long time, this was not really a problem. First, the Federal Constitution only applied to the Federal government. If a state law violated the 1st amendment right to free speech, and the state constitution didn't have a free speech right, the law was fine. With the passage of the 14th Amendment, Federal Constitutional provisions started being held against the states. Technically, limitations of the free speech of citizens, by a state, violates the 14th Amendment, not the 1st amendment.
The second protection of state rights was that the Federal government didn't do much. The fed has limited power under Article I, section 8 and 9. One of the big debates was whether to have the Bill of Rights at all because, under the limited federal power, Congress couldn't infringe on any of those rights anyway.
Things when to shit in the 1930s. First, the Supreme Court, in the move known as the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine," started granting the Federal government unlimited power to do whatever they wanted, under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8). Suddenly, the government could regulate everything, and it did. The more areas which the federal government passed laws in, the fewer areas states could have any say. This is the situation we find ourselves in today.
In short, if California decided to pass a constitutional amendment banning firearms, it would be void as unconstitutional. If Idaho passes a constitutional amendment forbidding any firearm restriction, it would invalidate state law, but federal law would still be enforceable.
At the end of the day, this is all our fault. We, as Americans, constentially ask the federal government to fix what we think is a problem in a place we don't live. This article basically sums it up. At the end of the day, people in New York are trying to tell people in California how to live, and the only way they can is through the federal government. The problem with this idea is that people in California can force people in New York to live a certain way. Right now, the federal government, and the federal constitution, is deep in a battle over who gets to tell us all how to live. This wasn't how it was supposed to happen, but thats how its playing out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_4.gif)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_4.gif)
Posts
2 comments:
And thus, this country is screwed. We have been under dictatorship since then, and it only worsens by the day. Which is why I refuse to recognize the totalitarian dictatorship known as the federal government, nor any of their coerced "laws" passed down by the state via federal extortion. I am a sovereign individual, and the government can kiss my arse...
Perhaps you're right. Then again, there's this nagging little thing called the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which states that any powers NOT SPECIFICALLY given to the federal government is reserved by the states and to the people.
The feds have tried to apply everything to themselves, but it's faulty logic. Just as they've high-jacked the "commerce clause" to give themselves far more broad powers than ever intended.
Just because the COURTS decide that something is the law of the land does NOT mean we have to accept it.
I'd love to hear your opinion on secession. I am of the strong belief that since the states entered the Union under their own free will, there is absolutely NO reaon why they cannot opt-out just the same. That scumbag Lincoln said otherwise, but he really should have been the recipient of a tall tree and a short rope. He perpetrated genocide on the American people all to "preserve the union", something h had no business doing. Your opinion?....
Post a Comment