If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Gun bill in Missouri could test the limits of State laws meant to nullify Federal laws and who knows could possibly wind up with the SCOTUS limiting the whole concept of Federal supremacy   (nytimes.com) divider line 120
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Missouri, federal law, state law, Missouri General Assembly, U.S. law, rural district, Missouri Republican Party  
•       •       •

3304 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Aug 2013 at 5:02 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-28 01:08:34 PM
Or the courts just invoke In Re Neagle and spank the state to bits
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 01:13:21 PM
If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.
 
2013-08-28 01:17:59 PM

vpb: If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.


Yeah that one whole vote difference there is an insurmountable firewall
 
2013-08-28 01:47:55 PM
link is 504d
 
2013-08-28 01:55:18 PM
In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.
 
2013-08-28 02:04:14 PM
State Representative T.J. McKenna, a Democrat from Festus, voted for the bill despite saying it was unconstitutional and raised a firestorm of protest against himself. "If you just Google my name, it's all over the place about what a big coward I am," he said with consternation, and "how big of a 'craven' I was. I had to look that up."

The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"


If what your constituents want is illegal, then YES!  OF COURSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO AGAINST THEM!
And I think it's fairly safe to say that the Supreme Court will toss out a law which allows a federal agent to be sued for enforcing federal laws.

Oh, and pet peeve here: Matt Wills, the party's director of communications, thanks in part to the push by President Obama for tougher gun laws. "It's probably one of the best states' rights issues that the country's got going right now," he said.
Republicans, if you want to stop being seen as the 'racist' party, then you should stop using the phrase 'states' rights'.  You can biatch, moan, and whine, claiming that it's a legal term and is not limited to the right of states to allow blacks to be bought and sold, but here's reality: it's a taintedwith being inextricably linked to violent perpetuation of slavery.  For your own sake, pick something new.
 
2013-08-28 02:06:32 PM

slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.


Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.
 
2013-08-28 02:25:25 PM

Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.


Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.
 
2013-08-28 02:32:25 PM

slayer199: Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.

Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.


CO and WA did not nullify federal law. The feds can still bust you for possession or growing weed, but now they have to do it without the participation or assistance of local or state law enforcement (something agencies like the DEA rely heavily on). Local cops can still assist with busts relating to other drugs, just not weed.
 
2013-08-28 02:47:51 PM

slayer199: Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.

Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.


You're confused on either the definition of nullification or on what various states have done to (locally) legalize marijuana.

States which have legalized pot have either removed, or altered to allow medical marijuana, their own state laws on pot.  Which is why, as you said, it's still illegal under federal law in those states.  City, country, and state cops won't arrest you for smoking a joint on the sidewalk, but if you do it in front of a DEA agent, he's still perfectly capable of slapping you in cuffs.

Nullification laws, such as this Missouri one regarding guns, and various Obamacare ones, aim to change federal laws within the boundaries of that particular state.  They're trying to say that if Congress passes a law that says "You can't sell machine guns in the US" that the state of Missouri has the right to change that to say "You can't sell machine guns in the US, except for Missouri - it's cool there."  They're trying to limit federal power by rewriting federal laws.

The part about allowing someone to sue a federal agent for enforcing federal law is actually the most legal, constitutional, and not-insane thing about this law.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 03:19:51 PM

NuttierThanEver: Yeah that one whole vote difference there is an insurmountable firewall


Considering that this would much more radical and that the Senate majority and president are Democrats, yes I think it is.
 
2013-08-28 03:36:38 PM
who knows could possibly wind up with the SCOTUS limiting the whole concept of Federal supremacy

The answer you're looking for is "lolno"
 
2013-08-28 03:45:57 PM

vpb: NuttierThanEver: Yeah that one whole vote difference there is an insurmountable firewall

Considering that this would much more radical and that the Senate majority and president are Democrats, yes I think it is.


????
I was referring to Chief Justice Roberts being the 1 vote difference in the ruling, I dont see your point
 
2013-08-28 04:10:28 PM
adweek.blogs.com
 
2013-08-28 04:58:59 PM

vpb: If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.


I thought part of their ruling left the door open to challenging other laws that punished states by witholding dollars if they didn't do exactly what the feds want(i.e highway funds in return for speed limits and drinking age).

This is a bit different though, since they're doing a wholesale "Nuh uh" to the feds, and I don't think any court wants to drag the more or less settled nullification argument back to the fore.
 
2013-08-28 05:06:32 PM
So, Missouri is joining in the Republican plan to funnel state tax money to lawyers who will argue against blatantly silly/unconstitutional laws? That HAS to be what's going on here, right?
 
2013-08-28 05:07:44 PM
Hey Missouri taxpayers, do you enjoy paying for the political grandstanding and attention whoring? It's on your dime and the only citizen it's helping is said elected officials...

you keep sucking their dicks though, they like that
 
2013-08-28 05:11:02 PM
Montana already took a case to the 9th Circuit over a similar law. They found it unconstitutional. Good luck to supporters in convincing SCOTUS to overturn almost a century of precedent on both the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.
 
2013-08-28 05:13:02 PM

vpb: If the court didn't create a constitutional crisis over the individual mandate they probably aren't going to try to change our form of government from a Federation to a Confederacy.


WOT?
 
2013-08-28 05:13:44 PM
He said that another provision of the measure, which makes it a crime to publish the name of any gun owner, violates the First Amendment and could make a crime out of local newspapers' traditional publication of "photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer."

Unintended consequences be damned. They have fear mongering to work on!

This reminds me of the Charter School law that had the "unintended consequence" of letting other religions take advantage.

Thinking things through is NOT high on right wing lists...
 
2013-08-28 05:13:57 PM

slayer199: Karac: slayer199: In principle, I like the concept of limiting federal power. Colorado and Waahington did it with legalizing marijuana. I just don't think the Missouri law will gain much traction nationwide.

Colorado and Washington did not nullify federal law, and did not even attempt to limit federal power.  They simply changed their own marijuana statutes on their own books.

Marihuana is illegal under federal law so they did nullify existing Federal law. What makes the Missouri law different is that it criminalizes federal agents for enforcing Federal gun laws in Missouri. Hard to gain any sympathy or traction when you do that.

What Colorado and Washington did do is bring up the likelihood of Congress legalizing pot (especially since a majority of Americans support outright legalization).

The Mssouri gun law won't spur any such discussion or do anything to reign in Federal power.


Marijuana is not illegal under Federal Law.
 
2013-08-28 05:14:55 PM
It almost as if these people have never read the Constitution of the United States, nor understand what "supreme law of the land" means...
 
2013-08-28 05:15:20 PM
Yea, who knows?

Oh, right. Everyone except the teabaggers who don't understand the Constitution they claim to love so much.
 
2013-08-28 05:15:57 PM
The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If you know it's unConstitutional, then YES you craven coward, you sack of stupid shiat, you tax payer money wasting fark.
 
2013-08-28 05:21:20 PM
The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"


How about growing a pair and telling your constituents passing the bill would be a huge waste of taxpayer money?
 
2013-08-28 05:22:17 PM

mcreadyblue: Marijuana is not illegal under Federal Law.


Yes? Go on...
 
2013-08-28 05:22:25 PM

Lord_Baull: It almost as if these people have never read the Constitution of the United States, nor understand what "supreme law of the land" means...


And yet, they scream about it the most...
 
2013-08-28 05:23:41 PM
Always remember that the SCOTUS is a part of that federal system you think they'd severely hinder.
 
2013-08-28 05:24:06 PM

Satanic_Hamster: The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If you know it's unConstitutional, then YES you craven coward, you sack of stupid shiat, you tax payer money wasting fark.



Damn, late to the party again.
 
2013-08-28 05:27:14 PM

Lord_Baull: Damn, late to the party again.


i1200.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-28 05:33:07 PM
State Representative T.J. McKenna, a Democrat from Festus, voted for the bill despite saying it was unconstitutional and raised a firestorm of protest against himself. "If you just Google my name, it's all over the place about what a big coward I am," he said with consternation, and "how big of a 'craven' I was. I had to look that up."

The voters in his largely rural district have voiced overwhelming support for the bill, he said. "I can't be Mr. Liberal, St. Louis wannabe," he said. "What am I supposed to do? Just go against all my constituents?"

If your constituents want something that is unconstitutional... YES!

/moran
 
2013-08-28 05:34:04 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Lord_Baull: It almost as if these people have never read the Constitution of the United States, nor understand what "supreme law of the land" means...

And yet, they scream about it the most...


well, that's where they keep the 2nd amendment! right where God intended it!
and the lord said "blessed is he who is burdened by the weight of his firearms and ammo"
 
2013-08-28 05:34:34 PM
Bet there's an awful lot of self-styled "Constitutional Originalists" voting for this.
 
2013-08-28 05:40:25 PM
Three years of law school and six years of practice have left my brain a little muddled - did I totally misread Article VI and the practical implications of the Civil War?
 
2013-08-28 05:41:27 PM
This is precisely why the "founding fathers" established and ratified our structure of local, city, state and federal government.  Decentralized balance of power keeps any one branch or division of government from imposing absurd or tyrannical laws on the people.  It is the responsibility of these states to stand against what they consider over-reaching, unconstitutional or absurd legislative or executive abuse from the Federal government as much as it is the Federal government's job to do the same against individual states.  When the conflict becomes large enough - a constitutional convention is needed to remedy the conflict.

All of these measures are intended protect our country from civil unrest.  Denying the rights of the states or the federal government to compete will likely lead to tyranny and/or revolt.  Let the system work as it was designed.
 
2013-08-28 05:42:13 PM

mcreadyblue: Marijuana is not illegal under Federal Law.


No, just possessing it, growing it, using it, selling it, or giving it away is.

The court will slap this down, hard, because there's one thing the Justices all agree on:  they love their power.  They would have to give some of it up to let this law through.  It will never happen.  Obama was all about removing power from the presidency until he was elected, and then that initiative mysteriously disappeared.  People like power and once they have it, they rarely give it up.
 
2013-08-28 05:45:23 PM
Any argument relying upon an appeal to "states rights" is nonsensical. Rights are a property of individuals and are inherent, collectives (such as states) possess "powers" which are granted. If a state has not been granted the power to override federal law, then the state does not have the authority to do so.
 
2013-08-28 05:45:39 PM

Solon Isonomia: Three years of law school and six years of practice have left my brain a little muddled - did I totally misread Article VI and the practical implications of the Civil War?


i.crackedcdn.com
 
2013-08-28 05:49:15 PM
You know what we need to do? We need to kick these sacks of shiat out of the country, let 'em form their own splinter countries, have no taxes to run their new country on, and be surrounded by a nation that levies a shiat-ton of tariffs on their imports and exports.

After about 5 years, we can check back to see how "anti fed" they REALLY feel.
 
2013-08-28 05:50:05 PM

Lsherm: No, just possessing it, growing it, using it, selling it, or giving it away is.


Only if you don't have the proper tax stamp for it.
 
2013-08-28 05:50:46 PM
Mr. Funderburk, the bill's author, clearly disagrees. And, he said, Missouri is only the beginning. "I've got five different states that want a copy" of the bill, he said.

that's the saddest part of the article.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 05:53:21 PM
A large part of the blame goes to Missouri's idiot Speaker of the House, who doesn't give two wet rat farts about the Constitution or responsible government. He also has fello numbnuts Rick Perry up here trying to drum up support for an override of the governor's veto of drastic income tax cuts that would make our education system as bad as the one in Texas.
 
2013-08-28 05:54:41 PM
I like that the governor has to slowly explain how farking retarded the law is.
 
2013-08-28 06:00:58 PM
He said that another provision of the measure, which makes it a crime to publish the name of any gun owner, violates the First Amendment and could make a crime out of local newspapers' traditional publication of "photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer."

So those Sandy Hook kids weren't killed or murdered, they were only harvested. Like Cabbage Patch kids, only with firearms.
 
2013-08-28 06:05:06 PM
Man the teabaggers really need to take an eight grade civics course because they think they can do a lot of things they can't. They seem to think "states rights" is some kind of magical incantation that lets them ignore the federal government. All these bills that supposedly allow them to arrest federal agents, preach in schools, limit abortions, defund the ACA and the rest of the seemingly endless litany of stupidity being vomited from the right these days aren't worth shiat. They are going to be thrown out of the first federal court they hit and the people opposing them have both the means and inclination to pursue it to that level. So the whole farking thing is just a massive waste of time and tax dollars and then they have the balls to say they are fiscal conservatives farking bags of shiat.
 
2013-08-28 06:11:21 PM
If states can do as they please without having to bother what the Federal Government says, then we're not one nation, indivisible.
 
2013-08-28 06:14:46 PM
Well, if the federal government didn't want this to happen then they shouldn't have passed unconstitutional laws.  I don't see what's so "scary" about un-trampling the bill of rights, subby.
 
2013-08-28 06:18:59 PM
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-08-28 06:28:21 PM
We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.
 
2013-08-28 06:28:36 PM
I'm fine with this. Federal laws assume all states want/need the same thing. Don't expect Texas and New Jersey to want the same gun laws.
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report