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 34
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, Missouri, federal law, state law, Missouri General Assembly, U.S. law, rural district, Missouri Republican Party  
•       •       •

3307 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Aug 2013 at 5:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-28 02:06:32 PM  
8 votes:

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 02:32:25 PM  
7 votes:

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 02:04:14 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:47:51 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-08-28 09:27:05 PM  
2 votes:
Going to be honest,  I hate 'states rights'.   I hate the whole need for people to see that their state has power, and that the federal government can have none.   I'm not proud to be a Montanan, or an Arizonan.  At all.  It means less than nothing to me.  I'm proud to be _an American_.   I'm happy to say "ONE NATION" in the Pledge of Allegiance, not '50 crappy little feudal fiefdoms'.

If it were up to me, I'd abolish them outright.  Go from a Federal level government, to a city/municipality one.
The federal level should deal with things that affect everyone in the nation, and the local govt should deal with things that only affect the local area.  (which should frankly be the majority of govt, in my opinion..LOCAL).

I think 'states' are utterly artificial and outmoded ideas who spring from a colonial mindframe.  It's time we moved beyond them.
2013-08-28 08:14:19 PM  
2 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..


States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.
2013-08-28 05:13:44 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:25:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:17:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:08:34 PM  
2 votes:
Or the courts just invoke In Re Neagle and spank the state to bits
2013-08-29 12:02:51 AM  
1 votes:

LordJiro: So you believe everyone should be able to own high-powered and/or full-auto firearms without a background check? Because anything less than that is 'infringing' in some way, and we're just haggling.


Way to go for the false dichotomy.

Very few gun rights advocates think that the constitution requires universal access to any firearm for anyone. In the same way that all sane people think there are rational limitations to the right of free speech, similarly all sane gun owners think there are rational limitations to the right of gun ownership.

In both cases, the enumerated rights are restricted by the social contract. In both cases, the right should be absolutely unimpeachable so long as your actions don't infringe on another's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If you can demonstrate that a particular act of speech or a particular act of gun ownership will significantly impinge another's rights, then by all means let's limit those rights. It's exactly why we don't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, it's exactly why we don't allow felons, domestic abusers, or the mentally incompetent to possess firearms. This is what is haggled over, not some nebulous concept of what constitutes a scary looking gun.

By and large, the biggest issue that gun rights advocates have with gun control legislation is when it infringes the right to own guns without demonstrable cause. Two good examples are the ones you cite above: automatic and high power (which I take to mean .50 caliber or larger) weapons. Both types of weapons are subject to onerous regulation, prohibitive taxation, and in the case of automatic weapons, a de-facto ban on ownership. Despite this, legally owned weapons of these types have virtually never been used to commit crimes in the united states, with only two recorded incidents in the last 90 years. This is out of hundreds of thousands of gun crimes, and many millions of violent crimes.  Conversely, cheap low power handguns continue to be lightly regulated, despite these weapons making the bulk of all firearms crime.

I believe that if you look at the history of gun control and gun rights in this country, what you will find is broad support among gun owners for gun control measures  that can be shown to be effective at reducing gun accidents and gun crime,  even when it infringes the rights of legal gun owners.For example, the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (sans machinegun ban), the Domestic Violence Offender Ban, etc.

If you look at the laws that gun owners absolutely despise, it's backwards legislation that solves no problem and prohibits weapons/accessories that are known to be not dangerous or commonly used for crime. These are things like the Hughes Amendment, and the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban.
2013-08-28 11:43:44 PM  
1 votes:

Because People in power are Stupid: [360x272 from http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/csa.jpg image 360x272]


I hate that movie, because it's premise represents all that's wrong with thinking about the civil war. The question of what would have happened if the South had one the war is a fascinating, complex question that reveals the deep interrelationships of our society, and it likely would have effected just about every aspect of how our country developed. The idea that 'everything is exactly the same, except there are still slaves', which is what the movie suggests, is the most ignorant and remedial way to think about the issue.
2013-08-28 10:13:03 PM  
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right,..

States deciding what is constitutional.  Yep.  Just like I learned the three branches all those years ago; Executive, Legislative and 50 Judicial states.

The 2nd says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", so when your supreme court says, "well some infringement is ok" it's not a decision of constitutionality, it's an absolute usurpation of constitutional authority.  If you believe the 2nd amendment is inconsistent with current technology or whatever bullshiat excuse you want to use, that's fine, but you have to make a new farking amendment, and you have to do it with the established process.  If you don't, then you're just breaking the law.  Don't try to pretend otherwise.


So you believe everyone should be able to own high-powered and/or full-auto firearms without a background check? Because anything less than that is 'infringing' in some way, and we're just haggling.
2013-08-28 09:14:09 PM  
1 votes:
I hate how the rural farks in this state dominate the urban areas.


It's like a Reverse Illinois.
2013-08-28 08:50:42 PM  
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
At Missionary Ridge, Chattanooga, Thomas ordered that 
a cemetery be built. This is his response to a chaplain 
who asked if the dead should be buried by state 
(Furgurson 55):
"No, no. Mix them up. Mix them up. I'm tired of states' 
rights."
2013-08-28 08:40:02 PM  
1 votes:

Mentat: 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?"


'My constituents are a bunch of ignorant vicious peckerwoods and I wouldn't get re-elected if I voted against ignorance, viciousness, or peckerwoodism.  Let's keep track of what's important: my job.'
2013-08-28 08:12:54 PM  
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Chummer45: BraveNewCheneyWorld: jake3988: We are STATES. NOT NATIONS.

We're not the european union.

The bill of rights is a contract which the federal government has broken.  It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.

You know what? You're right.  Lets have another civil war!  YEEEEEE HAAWWWWWWWW

Herp..

Soup4Bonnie: BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's well within a state's rights to reclaim for its citizens, the rights which the federal government illegally restricted.

Hover 'round children and I will tell you the story of how you were emancipated from the United States.

.. And .. Derp

Ok, lesson time.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 You see, when amendments are created, THEY are constitutional and the states must follow, but if the government just says "fark this, I don't like the 2nd amendment, let's just infringe the hell out of this thing and skip all the constitutional hurdles involved in creating a new amendment" that is not constitutional.  And if the states don't want to follow, that is their right, any violence that happens after that is not the fault of the state, but the fault of the government, because it is the federal government who violated the contract.


"People getting arrested in Wisconsin and North Carolina for peaceful protests? Meh, they were libs and union supporters, they probably deserved it. It's marginally more difficult for me to buy  security blankets firearms? REVOLUTION!!1!!11!"
2013-08-28 07:55:13 PM  
1 votes:
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that the Federal government will cede any authority or power to the states at this late stage of the game is deluding himself, lying to the rest of us or just plain farking retarded.

Anyone who says otherwise can catch a clue from Dr. Cox.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUttbZcv7WI
2013-08-28 07:36:35 PM  
1 votes:
2013-08-28 07:08:39 PM  
1 votes:

Befuddled: If states can do as they please without having to bother what the Federal Government says, then we're not one nation, indivisible.


Why wouldn't we have the ability to remain indivisible?  We would remain "United" States rather than a "Federal State", which is what you become when the federal government makes laws that override the states right to make their own laws.  Why have states at all then?
2013-08-28 07:05:22 PM  
1 votes:
Didn't we just have one of these cases last term? A high profile one, even?

Oh yeah, we did. Didn't end well for Arizona.

The Supreme Court, nuts as they may be these days, isn't going to overturn federal supremacy any time soon.
2013-08-28 06:56:09 PM  
1 votes:
He said that another provision of the measure, which makes it a crime to publish the name of any gun owner,

So if I purchase a gun, they can't publish my name in any context?  Not even if I commit a crime?  Or run for office?  Or save a bus full of nuns?

F*ck that's stupid.
2013-08-28 06:18:59 PM  
1 votes:
i1.ytimg.com
2013-08-28 06:00:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:50:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:41:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:33:07 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:15:57 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:15:20 PM  
1 votes:
Yea, who knows?

Oh, right. Everyone except the teabaggers who don't understand the Constitution they claim to love so much.
2013-08-28 05:11:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:07:44 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:58:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:10:28 PM  
1 votes:
adweek.blogs.com
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-28 01:13:21 PM  
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report