This is interesting

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by armedandsafe, May 22, 2009.

  1. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    In light of the action by Montana and the proposals by Alaska and Texas and rumbles from other States. (Emphasis mine.)

    In other words, "Keep your mouth shut, fool and stop bragging about it."

  2. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Does this mean the States can adopt any policy they like as long as they don't do it. Does this mean that the President can rule by executive fiat? Pops, I was thinking "Sit down and shut up." Do they have adifferent copy of the Constitution at the White House than the one I have? Does the President think he rules under some obscure provision of the U. N. or something governing the nation of Kenia. I didn't know we had been annexed.

  3. mrkirker

    mrkirker New Member

    Jul 13, 2007
    Isn't there something in the Constitution about the indiv states retaining rights not being specifically granted to the national government? (I may not have worded that correctly, I'm just a janitor; sorry!)

    It certainly is a strange Memorandum.
  4. Islandboy

    Islandboy New Member

    Feb 21, 2009
    Off the right coast
    The states pre-existed the Fed so thein lies some of the problems for the fed.
    That is what "Heads of departments and agencies should not include in regulatory preambles statements that the department or agency intends to preempt State law through the regulation" is talking about, I think.
    I'm no U.S. constitutional scholar either, but to A&S I interpreted it exacly as you, but one would have to read Executive Order 13132 of August 4, 1999 (Federalism), to be sure.
    Sounds to me he is realizing there are some restraints on a sitting President, and that it is not like Kenyan tribal cheiftain rule.
    See, I think it is not just him and his bright ideas, but what his bright ideas are empowering other bright sparks to get excited about doing on their own.
    I.E. he isn't in total control of the "change"
    Kind of like a "Waco" Texas potential but spread out all over every federal dept. with a bit of Authority. and over a bit of time.
    Am I completely wrong or misinterping this?
  5. Tom Militano

    Tom Militano New Member

    Feb 26, 2007
    Jacksonville, AL
    I still want to see his birth certificate, now.
  6. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    It sounds like the recent states rights push has gotten someone's panties in a wad. :D
  7. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Like kicking over an ant hill.
  8. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    I'm withholding comment on this thread to allow sufficient time for discussion. I want to address a very similar issue that's closely related, but wont hijack this thread. My only comment is that politicians sure like to confuse what could be a simple topic with a lot of words.
  9. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    ROMT, come on in. Or start another thread. Or both. Heck, most of us are smart enough to follow along. :D :p :D

  10. Yes, the 10th Amendment:). But Fedzilla doesn't seem to pay attention to it:mad::mad:. TJ
  11. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    Well OK, here goes.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    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.

    I have a lot of trouble determining exactly what the powers of congress actually are and what the exact significance of the tenth amendment is.

    Isn't this like saying that the state can make any law they want as long as congress has not already passed legislation regarding a thing?

    It would seem that the federal government is free to pass any law it wants as long as it does not violate the constitution.

    What then is left to the states...unconstitutional laws? (sarcasm)

    There are cases where federal law supersedes or overrides state law. Generally it seems that every law or ordinance is overruled by contradictory legislation of a higher level of government.

    Then again I can cite examples where a local ordinance is more restrictive than a states laws. One case I personally did battle over many years ago regarded the exhaust system on a motor vehicle. At the time I was cited for having headers and side pipes on my Camarro.

    At the time the state law on motor vehicle exhaust stated that the exhaust system must safely deliver exhaust fumes to a point 4 inches past the passenger compartment and shall not be designed for the purpose of creating excessive noise.

    My exhaust system met these requirements. However there was a local ordinance making any modification to the factory exhaust system illegal.

    I argued that the state law superseded the city ordinance as the state had more authority. I lost.

    So now we have states utilizing the 10th amendment to declare their sovereignty and take back their constitutional powers. This would seem a good thing. But could it backfire? Suppose there are federal laws which were fairly liberal and unrestrictive. Could then the state laws place more restrictions on citizens not enumerated by federal law?

    With regard to firearms I don't believe the federal government has the right to pass any legislation restricting the right of any citizen to keep and bear arms.

    Looking at the second amendment again,

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    could we not borrow the language from the first amendment and rewrite this as:

    Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ?

    By definition infringement means:


    Main Entry: in·fringe·ment
    Pronunciation: \in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
    Function: noun
    Date: 1628
    1 : the act of infringing : violation
    2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

    Isn't that the same thing as prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

    So you see I'm rather confused about what the meaning is of declaring state sovereignty. I think it is generally a good thing as long as it doesn't allow a state to be more restrictive. The federal government is like a matastasized cancer which has grown to enormous size and needs to be excised.

    But as far as the second amendment goes it would seem to me they would not have to utilize the tenth amendment, rather merely refuse to enforce any federal firearms laws by citing their volation of the second.
  12. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    For a long time in our history, the Constitution was not held to be binding on State laws controlling that State's citizens/residents. Then, in the aftermath of the Civil War, there began to be decisions holding that the Constitution DID bind the States to certain restrictions. Each of the clauses of and amendments to the Constitution were "incorporated" separately as binding upon the States. The Second Amendment is one of the last to be held as binding on the States.

    "Infringment" is a funny term in law. It has always been held that laws concerning the manner of practice of a freedom are allowable. An extreme example would be the practice of a religous belief that killing certain people is required by that religous belief. Thus, the manner in which you use your "arms" can be regulated. Shooting out street lights can be outlawed as an illegal firearms use as well as prosecuted as destruction of property. Possession and bearing of what were considered arms and their analogues today cannot be restricted.

    Can you be denied the right to carry a firearm into a gunpowder factory? Sure. Can you be denied the right to carry a firearm into your church, with the permission of the congreation? Probably not, if you want to fight it hard enough. Can you be denied the right to own a pistol with some biege parts, instead of black or stainless. I'll let you answer that based on whether you live in California or DC.

    Basically, many of our courts are beginning to swing back to the Constitution. Nto enough of them and not fast enough, but I'm seeing a trend, just as I'm seeing the trend in the general populace. Baby steps, folks. The pendulum swings. Sometimes it has a guillotine attached and sometimes a hammock.

    I know I haven't answered all of your questions. Even I don't know everything. :p Just keep in mind that there are many people in prison and many others who are dead because they assumed that everybody in their government is honest and honorable.

  13. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    ROMT, my state has decided recently that preemption of local law is acceptable only when it is more strict than the corresponding state law. In other words, if you're traveling through a town that does not allow handguns to be loaded and stored in a latched compartment and you're stopped, you're not guilty of anything if the state law allows the practice. This prevents travelers from having to keep track of law in every county or municipality they visit. The state law prevails in that case. I think this is a good form of preemption. :)

    The federal form of preemption always seems to dictate that if the federal law is more strict than the state law, then the federal law prevails. I don't agree with that. The Feds are regulating us into the ground as of late. This is as good of time as any to get involved in the 'states rights' cause. :D
    Last edited: May 23, 2009
  14. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    I agree and it may be our best last hope. The alternative as i see it is out and out revolt and as we have discussed on here a number of times that would be tragic.
  15. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    Feb 4, 2009
    Reno, NV
    We get on here and discuss the U.S. Constitution and various articles and amendments. All the discussion is good and should spread but as things are now, the constitution doesn't even seem to be used as a guide except when it supports a certain activist agenda.

    Now, Obama has the opportunity to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court. There is a lot of talk of this "acitivist" judge or that "activist" judge. There is no telling what sort of judge we will end up with except that the judge will be an "activist".

    The bench is supposed to be where the written law, not "ideas" or causes are paramount.

    will the next SC judge apply the law or will he/she/it utilize the bench to promote a cause? This is a critical question if we are to maintain what we have left of our individual rights.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Interesting NFA case in the courts Jan 20, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Interesting article Jan 3, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Interesting take on media and Obama. Jan 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Interesting article on metal illnes! Dec 16, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Interesting Viewpoint #2 Oct 21, 2012