States Tell Fed to Cease & Desist - Page 10 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

jviehe · #**136** (**permalink**) 07-14-2009

Back to the topic.

danielpalos · #**137** (**permalink**) 07-14-2009

The theory of nullification is a valid theory in the US and is practiced by the US as one of the several States of the United Nations.

In principle, the several states should have recourse to that precedent already established by the judicature of the United States.

Lettuce Head · #**138** (**permalink**) 07-14-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHighForester

One final note in explanation. The advocates of the "10th Amendment Movement," who have introduced legislation in numerous states aimed at curtailing federal power, keep reciting that amendment, "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."

They take this to mean that the States have the right to do everything that is not specifically prohibited to them or enumerated as one of the powers of the federal government. I will disagree with this vehemently. All authority belongs to the people. The states and the federal government have each been granted by them certain sovereign authority, but it is the people, not the states, and not the federal government, who should have the final say. This ultimate authority must be wisely used to limit the powers of both the states and the federal government.

Nice post by the way. Could you expand on this? What do you think the States are doing or trying to do that are not reserved to them?

danielpalos · #**139** (**permalink**) 07-15-2009

The theory of nullification is a valid theory in the US and is practiced by the US as one of the several States of the United Nations.

In principle, the several states should have recourse to that precedent already established by the judicature of the United States.

State nullification of powers not specifically Delegated to the general government of the Union, should be a routine matter.

bg85 · #**140** (**permalink**) 07-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

The theory of nullification is a valid theory in the US and is practiced by the US as one of the several States of the United Nations.

In principle, the several states should have recourse to that precedent already established by the judicature of the United States.

yes daniel we know

danielpalos · #**141** (**permalink**) 07-15-2009

State nullification of powers not specifically Delegated to the general government of the Union, should be a routine matter.

Do you agree or with that premise? If not, why not?

bg85 · #**142** (**permalink**) 07-15-2009

^i'm not agreeing with you or disagreeing with you i just think it's funny that you use the exact same wording in different posts

danielpalos · #**143** (**permalink**) 07-15-2009

Some people like to drag Reductio (ad absurdum) along into the conversation.

Do you want to develop a point of view? I don't mind going over hypotheticals, with someone who claims to be non-judgmental of this argument and line of reasoning.

Salivating Dog · #**144** (**permalink**) 07-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lettuce Head

I've waited my 30 days to start a thread, just as the boss told me.

Something I've not seen much on the news is how states are drafting and passing States Rights Resolutions. So far 37 states are at one stage or another in the process. I have included a map here: State Sovereignty Resolutions|Tenth Amendment Center

The states are telling the Feds to back off and to stop reaching into areas where they don't belong. Some think this is simple posturing on the part of the states while others see this as a movement forming that might actually put the Feds in their place. And some try to spin this as talk of succession, but the wording within the resolutions do not mention the word.

This topic drives arguments that we are a centralized or nationalized government and states are the agent of the Federal Government. Arguments also abound that it was the states that determined the shape, scope and duties of their agent, the Federal Government. In most state resolutions the word "Agent" is used to describe the Fed.

Since the states began to do this over this past year, it has started to branch out into more specific areas such as gun control and health care. For instance, Montana actually passed a law that removes them from Federal control as it relates to guns manufactured and sold within the state. Tennessee is following close behind with more states to follow. Arizona passed a thing that will be on the ballot next year that if passed will allow citizens of the great state the ability to opt out of any government run health program. They are planning ahead.

This whole movement is based primarily in the Constitution's 10th Amendment:

"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."

The States have served Obama, Reed and Pelosi with bonafide copies of their resolutions. Will the Federal Government listen to the States? Will they continue to hold back funds from the States if they do not comply with what they want? Should the Feds be held to the letter of the Constitution and be made to retreat back to what the clearly defined enumerated powers are as signed and documented by the States when the Constitution and the following Amendments were initially put into law?

Do the states and their citizens contribute to the federal government?

If the federal government cuts off federal money, what prevents a state from retaliating and cutting off the federal government from it's citizens income tax revenue?

Do the states get more from the US government, than they contribute?

Lettuce Head · #**145** (**permalink**) 07-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salivating Dog

Do the states and their citizens contribute to the federal government?

If the federal government cuts off federal money, what prevents a state from retaliating and cutting off the federal government from it's citizens income tax revenue?

Do the states get more from the US government, than they contribute?

I'm not up on all the tax structures between the States and the Fed. I did hear on the news today that twice as much stimulus money is going to counties that voted for Obama than for McCain.

But check this out. From The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution|Tenth Amendment Center

Quote:

The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution
Posted on 18 July 2009
by Bryce Shonka

A line was drawn in the sand last week - a response by the Federal Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

(Editor’s note: A similar response was sent to Montana Firearms licenses on 07-16-09 as well)

Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.

Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.

The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”

At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-

“Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to regulate commerce contained completely within this state – enough is enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states’ sovereignty and I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking their noses where they don’t belong.”

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:

“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’ That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.”

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

The Federal Government has regularly claimed that the commerce clause of the constitution, which gives DC authority to regulate commerce between the states, gives them authority to regulate or add prohibitions on items that never cross state lines.

One notable use of the commerce clause in this manner can be found in the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in ‘Gonzales vs. Raich’, where the court contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. They used this claim, even though at the same time they made it clear that no legal market for marijuana exists.

One key aspect of the ATF’s letter is that it was only sent out to existing Federal Firearms Licensees, those generally already in compliance with federal regulations - and who likely would not have participated in the TN Firearms Freedom act anyway, according to sources close to Tenth Amendment Center.

Ultimately what the letter represents is another move in the chess match being played out between the states and the Federal Government, the resolution of which may not be seen for quite some time.

And so it begins. This will more than likely end up in the Federal Supreme Court, who being federal itself, might see need to protect its own.

danielpalos · #**146** (**permalink**) 07-20-2009

I am under the impression that federal law only applies to interstate commerce, the congressional District, and other federal property.

Regulation of intrastate commerce should be considered a States' right.

Salivating Dog · #**147** (**permalink**) 07-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lettuce Head

I'm not up on all the tax structures between the States and the Fed. I did hear on the news today that twice as much stimulus money is going to counties that voted for Obama than for McCain.

But check this out. From The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution|Tenth Amendment Center

And so it begins. This will more than likely end up in the Federal Supreme Court, who being federal itself, might see need to protect its own.

VERY interesting situation.

Legally (Constitutionally) states can leave the US entirely. You cannot try them for treason. This nation was created and founded by seccession.

The ONLY reason they got away with it in the Civil War was the federal government claimed the CSA's slaves were being held against their will as hostages.

If states cannot leave the USA without threat of force and invasion from the USA...the states are no longer free...States, in effect, would be federal prisoners, held against their will. (As they claimed the CSA was doing.)

This is one hell of a situation....and a no win situation for the federal government.

That aside....I firmly believe that seccession is probably the only thing that is going to save this nation. If the states leave, the federal government will be stuck powerless to repay it's foreign banks alone. meanwhile, we can reorganize with a new name, and new foreign trade policies, and carry on with a clean slate.

WTG Tennesee and Montana!

Salivating Dog · #**148** (**permalink**) 07-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I am under the impression that federal law only applies to interstate commerce, the congressional District, and other federal property.

Regulation of intrastate commerce should be considered a States' right.

Agreed. And the federal government screwed up REALLY bad officially challenging it and dismissing it.

Tenn was testing the waters, and setting them up.

And they fell for it.

No matter how SCOTUS rules....they lose in this case.

I look for other states to follow after they see what happens to Tenn and MT.