I dunno Jim. Hoodlum takes his shots as well as anyone (and better than some). I've never seen anyone sent to the brig 'cause they called him out. He seems to be able to separate the two roles just fine. I'm good with that (considering I spend most of my time in the brig, that's really saying' something ).
I agree. Members don't lose their rights when they become moderators. And I've never seen Hoodlum abuse his authority.
Lohkee wrote: I dunno Jim. Hoodlum takes his shots as well as anyone (and better than some). I've never seen anyone sent to the brig 'cause they called him out. He seems to be able to separate the two roles just fine. I'm good with that (considering I spend most of my time in the brig, that's really saying' something ).
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: I agree. Members don't lose their rights when they become moderators. And I've never seen Hoodlum abuse his authority.
I'm fine with it if a moderator can voluntarily go "off duty" when taking sides in a debate. Things get heated in SB and tempers flare though. Maintaing objectivity and fairness during that is something I would struggle with, which is probably one reason why I'm not a moderator after all my years on MM. Dean Johnson has informed me that any Moderator should be CAM'd if they try to Moderate a thread they are debating in.
The Signature Image wrote: Also based on the Montana legislation a state could pass any law as long as the law only applied to that state.
I.e, would it possible for a state to pass a law that says only property owners could vote based on the "...law only affects people in the state" so federal law cannot be enforced?
Vivus Hussien :
So? Some say that the 2nd Amendment "specifically prohibits" infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
No state can draw a line around itself and say "Federal law doesn't apply inside these borders." That applies to ALL federal laws, including both the 13th Amendment and laws regulating gun sales. That's not bullying or trampling on the Bill of Rights. It's upholding the Constitution.
Both of you need to read your constitution again and take a basic course.
Let me teach you something about how it works.....
The constitution was written to apply to the federal government. The constitution GIVES specific powers to the federal government. These are called "enumerated" powers.
Powers NOT specifically enumuerated in the constitution are give to the states and the people.
We also have a thing called the Bill of Rights. These are PROTECTIONS for citizens against the government. They are a citizens RIGHTS.
Now......the reason why there is a huge difference between intrastate gun rights and slavery is because there is a difference between "protections" and "powers".
The federal government can "regulate" certain things if they effect interstate or foreign commerce. This is a "power" the federal government has.
There is nothing specifically enumerated in the constitution about federal power to regulate guns. The federal government assumed their power through the commerce clause.
Therefore, if guns dont effect interstate or foreign commerce, the federal government doesnt have the power to regulate it.
Now, the question then..."states could then pass laws allowing slavery".
NO, they cant.
The reason is because of PROTECTIONS in the Bill of Rights for ALL people under the 13th Amendment explicity prohibits slavery. You have the right and the protection in the 13th Amendment to not be a slave. Since the 13th Amendment is also incorporated, it applies to the states.
A state can't pass a law that violates ANY protections or rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Jim Ball wrote: I object to Moderators participating in Soapbox threads. They need to stick to being Moderators and stay out of Soapbox other than as needed to enforce the rules.
Lohkee wrote: I dunno Jim. Hoodlum takes his shots as well as anyone (and better than some). I've never seen anyone sent to the brig 'cause they called him out. He seems to be able to separate the two roles just fine. I'm good with that (considering I spend most of my time in the brig, that's really saying' something ).
I agree with Jim.
I love Hood but the moderators are human and as such they are biased like the rest of us.
If you have skin in the game or a dog in the fight you shouldn't be a MOD.
Luke Ryan Photography wrote: Both of you need to read your constitution again and take a basic course.
Let me teach you something about how it works.....
The constitution was written to apply to the federal government. The constitution GIVES specific powers to the federal government. These are called "enumerated" powers.
Powers NOT specifically enumuerated in the constitution are give to the states and the people.
We also have a thing called the Bill of Rights. These are PROTECTIONS for citizens against the government. They are a citizens RIGHTS.
Now......the reason why there is a huge difference between intrastate gun rights and slavery is because there is a difference between "protections" and "powers".
The federal government can "regulate" certain things if they effect interstate or foreign commerce. This is a "power" the federal government has.
There is nothing specifically enumerated in the constitution about federal power to regulate guns. The federal government assumed their power through the commerce clause.
Therefore, if guns dont effect interstate or foreign commerce, the federal government doesnt have the power to regulate it.
Now, the question then..."states could then pass laws allowing slavery".
NO, they cant.
The reason is because of PROTECTIONS in the Bill of Rights for ALL people under the 13th Amendment explicity prohibits slavery. You have the right and the protection in the 13th Amendment to not be a slave. Since the 13th Amendment is also incorporated, it applies to the states.
A state can't pass a law that violates ANY protections or rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Do US Citizens have the right to life? As the people in Aurora found out - their assailant was able to deprive them of the right to life by using his right to guns.
Which right does the Court hold paramount?
The Preamble states that the government is to provide "Domestic Tranquility". Does a 15 shot magazine enhance or detract from that tranquility? We've had laws on the books in most States regulating the length of shotgun barrels for decades (even passing Supreme Court review). It was found that some weapons did not pass the "militia" test.
I do not see how bans on some weapons from being privately held is necessarily a slippery slope. Did the barrel length restriction on shotguns change the ownership of shotguns?
I'm not against private ownership of guns. But I'm not against some limitations on hardware.
Do US Citizens have the right to life? As the people in Aurora found out - their assailant was able to deprive them of the right to life by using his right to guns.
Which right does the Court hold paramount?
The Preamble states that the government is to provide "Domestic Tranquility". Does a 15 shot magazine enhance or detract from that tranquility? We've had laws on the books in most States regulating the length of shotgun barrels for decades (even passing Supreme Court review). It was found that some weapons did not pass the "militia" test.
I do not see how bans on some weapons from being privately held is necessarily a slippery slope. Did the barrel length restriction on shotguns change the ownership of shotguns?
I'm not against private ownership of guns. But I'm not against some limitations on hardware.
These issues you raise are seperate from the legal issue of states rights vs federal powers to regulate as per the OP
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,020
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: A billl that simply declares that the Feds have no power to regulate guns within Kansas...sounds more like a resolution than a law. It would make gun advocates feel good, I guess, but it would have no effect. Even if it were a law, the final deciding factor would be the federal courts, not the KS legislature.
Waste of legislative time. But it might help some conservatives get elected. Maybe that's the real point.
Which of the powers enumerated in the Constitution to the (limited) federal government give the feds any control over what happens within state borders?
Interstate commerce ? Nope
International trade n defense? Nope
Funny, I can't think of one
Yes, they can sue. They can strongarm. They can withhold federal money. But Constitutionally, they cannot force a state to obey.
Food that is raised and sold within state boundaries seems to escape federal regulations that apply to food shipped across state lines, so I wouldn't be surprised if this scheme works.
Sure they can California refuses to enforce federal immigration laws and gets away with it just fine.
Sad that you are ashamed that others in your state want to stand up for the Constitution and stop an over oppressive government trampling on basic Constitutional rights.
That's only because the Federal Government doesn't care.
CA thinks pot is legal but the Feds occasionally make it very clear that it is not.
Which of the powers enumerated in the Constitution to the (limited) federal government give the feds any control over what happens within state borders?
Interstate commerce ? Nope
International trade n defense? Nope
Funny, I can't think of one
Yes, they can sue. They can strongarm. They can withhold federal money. But Constitutionally, they cannot force a state to obey.
A conservative Supreme Court ruled in Gonzalez v. Raich that "production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."
In other words, just because a commodity is locally produced, sold and bought, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on interstate commerce. As such, the federal government can regulate it. That goes for guns and ammo.
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: A conservative Supreme Court ruled in Gonzalez v. Raich that "production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."
In other words, just because a commodity is locally produced, sold and bought, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on interstate commerce. As such, the federal government can regulate it. That goes for guns and ammo.
The case you cited is a bad ruling. I disagree with it.
Why do you insert conservative in bold ?
The only "conservative" to vote in favor was Scalia. All of the other justices to vote in favor were liberals.
Either way, its a horrible ruling.
Fortunately individual states are decriminalizing drugs and the feds will slowly follow suit.
Since several people have inquired about my participating in forum threads I will say this.
It is and has been mod policy that when a mod becomes a active participant in a thread as a member they are not to moderate that particular thread. If a Mod sees something that would require mod intervention they are to simply let another mod know and let them moderate that thread. This has been mod policy for years now and was in effect back in Tyler's day. Mods have been removed over the years for repeated violations of this policy so we do actively regulate ourselves. Now in an emergency i.e.; posting of someone's private info or something like that we can act but basically for things like briggings and such another mod will be brought in.
Hoodlum wrote: Since several people have inquired about my participating in forum threads I will say this.
It is and has been mod policy that when a mod becomes a active participant in a thread as a member they are not to moderate that particular thread. If a Mod sees something that would require mod intervention they are to simply let another mod know and let them moderate that thread. This has been mod policy for years now and was in effect back in Tyler's day. So far two mods have been removed over the years for repeated violations of this policy so we do actively regulate ourselves. now in an emergency i.e.; posting of someone's private info or something like that we can act but basically for things like briggings and such another mod will be brought in.
Carry on.
That is common sense and what I would have expected, and why many here would not think of it.
The case you cited is a bad ruling. I disagree with it.
Why do you insert conservative in bold ?
The only "conservative" to vote in favor was Scalia. All of the other justices to vote in favor were liberals.
Either way, its a horrible ruling.
Fortunately individual states are decriminalizing drugs and the feds will slowly follow suit.
I called the court conservative. It was the Rehnquist court. I think most people would agree that it's proper to call the Rehnquist court conservative.
Anyway, it's the law of the land. As I said, no state can constitutionally draw a line around itself and say federal law - or SCOTUS decisions - don't apply inside that line. The legislators in Montana, Kansas, Missouri, etc., know that damn well. So, they also know that any bill or law that claims it is constitutional to ignore federal gun laws as long as the guns are made and sold within the state is constitutional bullshit. As I said, such laws are feel-good laws, but they are a waste of legislative time.
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: ...
Anyway, it's the law of the land. As I said, no state can constitutionally draw a line around itself and say federal law - or SCOTUS decisions - don't apply inside that line. The legislators in Montana, Kansas, Missouri, etc., know that damn well. So, they also know that any bill or law that claims it is constitutional to ignore federal gun laws as long as the guns are made and sold within the state is constitutional bullshit. As I said, such laws are feel-good laws, but they are a waste of legislative time.
I think the key to their action is that it will allow the state to spend state money to defend the local gun-makers. Assuming their theory is correct - that the gun makers are beyond Federal action if all is local - they wouldn't even have to pass a law, since that's the limit of Federal authority. The gun makers, though, need financial help to counter the huge resources that our tax dollars give the Feds.
I called the court conservative. It was the Rehnquist court. I think most people would agree that it's proper to call the Rehnquist court conservative.
Anyway, it's the law of the land. As I said, no state can constitutionally draw a line around itself and say federal law - or SCOTUS decisions - don't apply inside that line. The legislators in Montana, Kansas, Missouri, etc., know that damn well. So, they also know that any bill or law that claims it is constitutional to ignore federal gun laws as long as the guns are made and sold within the state is constitutional bullshit. As I said, such laws are feel-good laws, but they are a waste of legislative time.
And where that might come into play is when you get somebody like the Freemen, where an arsenal is present... I doubt the Feds would give a hoot in hell about the state gun laws in the prosecution of the perps.
Luke, you should also read up on the Supremacy Clause, and on nullification. In short, under our Constitution, it is not the states that have the power to decide issues of federal jurisdiction and power. It is the federal courts. Further, states cannot nullify federal laws by legislating them out of existence. Federal laws have full force and effect unless and until a federal court rules them unconstitutional.
"Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or federal laws that they view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The Supreme Court has rejected nullification, finding that under Article III of the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law."
Native Kansan and I'm sad to say I'll never move back. Back in the day, Kansas Republicans (Dole, Kassabaum, etc.) were reasonable and rational. Now they're all religious fundamentalists who bow to the Almighty Dollar. They have gutted business and income taxes and now the state is faced with hundreds of millions in debt each year because of legislation from the conservative Republicans and their conservative Republican governor, Sam Brownback (and the boys who bankroll them, - the Koch Brothers from Wichita). They did this despite what every reputable economist warned them about its consequences. They are now resorting to sales taxes to make up the deficit. Of course, this hits the poor harder than it does the wealthy since the poor have little disposable income. Kansas is heading for a really economic problem. Schools and social services will be hit first and no one wants to live in a state that has third world education.
Vivus Hussein Denuo wrote: Luke, you should also read up on the Supremacy Clause, and on nullification. In short, under our Constitution, it is not the states that have the power to decide issues of federal jurisdiction and power. It is the federal courts. Further, states cannot nullify federal laws by legislating them out of existence. Federal laws have full force and effect unless and until a federal court rules them unconstitutional.
I'm sorry if you don't like the way the Founding Fathers set this up.
So does that mean the President needs to defend DOMA and enforce laws he chooses not to?
Actually lots of people decide Constitutionality not just the Federal Courts. Presidents, the Legislature and Federal/State officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and have responsiblity to make that determination themself. Nuremburg established the principle that you are under no obligation to follow illegal orders or laws.
Yes there is a Supremacy Clause but that only applies to Constitutional Laws where the Federal Government has primary or concurrent jurisdiction. States and Cities seem to be able to pick and chose which Federal Laws they choose to uphold (Santuary Cities and drug laws come to mind).
So does that mean the President needs to defend DOMA and enforce laws he chooses not to?
Actually lots of people decide Constitutionality not just the Federal Courts. Presidents, the Legislature and Federal/State officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and have responsiblity to make that determination themself. Nuremburg established the principle that you are under no obligation to follow illegal orders or laws.
Yes there is a Supremacy Clause but that only applies to Constitutional Laws where the Federal Government has primary or concurrent jurisdiction. States and Cities seem to be able to pick and chose which Federal Laws they choose to uphold (Santuary Cities and drug laws come to mind).
When it comes to the law not much is clear cut.
Law enforcement is done at the discretion of law enforcement agencies and officers. E.g., if you think your local police chief should spend more time arresting jaywalkers, and less time on bank robberies, you are free to urge him in that direction. But he has no legal duty to run his office as you think he should. The same is true at the federal level. The President, DOJ, Atty. Gen'l, etc., can allocate resources as they see fit. If you don't think Obama is adequately enforcing DOMA, your only remedy is to vote for someone else, next time...and meanwhile to voice your objection as loudly as you wish.
Yes, lots of people interpret federal laws, but it's the interpretation of the federal courts that counts, under our Constitution. Not yours or mine...or the states'.
You may like the way Arizona enforces immigration laws, and dislike the way California does so, but again, your remedy is to vote for or against your state and local officials on Election Day. As for the Feds, there is nothing you can do to force the Atty. Genl. to enforce federal laws the way you think he should, except, again, to vote out the administration next Election Day, or vote to keep them, if you prefer.
It sounds like the last Election Day didn't go the way you like. Been there.
).
Moderator Note!
| 
| 
| edu