Hmmmm
(Washington Times) In Missouri, legislation has been introduced to nullify every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future.â€
The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, introduced as Senate Bill 613 (SB613) for the 2014 legislative session by Sen. Brian Nieves, follows on the heels of a failed effort to do the same in 2013.
The bill states, in part:
All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
State employees would be barred from enforcing federal firearms laws that violate the act, and could even see agents, including federal agents, who violate the law jailed.
This is interesting in that the bill is meant to stand up for State’s Rights, as portrayed by that pesky 10th Amendment, and reduce the power of the Federal government, as the system was meant to be.
Article 6, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
If the Supreme Court has ruled that a particular federal law is constitutional, e.g., regulating machine guns, how likely is it that the Supreme Court would rule the MO law as unconstitutional?
That’s an interesting point, Jiffy.
The problem with it is that your example of regulating machine guns is done at the federal level, not the state level. Therefore if the states want to say “we aren’t going to enforce a federal law; let the feds enforce it,” how does the federal government get around that?
In fact, the idea that federal law can only be enforced by feds was the very argument that the federal government made in the Arizona illegal immigration case. If you remember, Arizona started to pick up illegals using both state and federal law and the administration argued that the Federal government and only the federal government could enforce immigration laws.
I agree that this argument does hinge on the tenth amendment somewhat, but the other part is that the Constitution does not allow federal intervention in intra state commerce – such as the buying and selling of guns.
Nullification is a very important weapon that the Founding Fathers understood, and left to the people.
When the Supreme Leader decides which Supreme Law of the Land he wants to enforce (obey) or not enforce(disobey) he sets a bad example for the rest of us. As “shit” rolls downhill so does leadership. Whatever a leader does becomes OK for the followers. Missouri, South Carolina, 475 sheriffs, are all picking and choosing what they will do and not do. If the IRS has no integrity why would a taxpayer? If the EPA has left off being scientific and is only political why should anybody pay attention. Their only credibility was scientific, if they abandon that, they are just arbitrary government to be disobeyed. If the Courts no longer enforce the law but create the law, they have lost their claim to justice and become arbitrary government. When government at all levels sets out to exceed the agreement and support of its citizens it has lost its legitimacy.
I’m sympathetic, but nullification is a zombie issue: dead, but just won’t go away. It’s unconstitutional and just a bad, very bad idea that would lead to constitutional chaos. Even James Madison, whom nullification supporters like to cite as author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798, backed away from actual nullification, writing against it in either the late 1820s or early 1830s.
If you want a similar idea that would fit with our constitutional tradition and that I could support, let me suggest Randy Barnett’s 6th constitutional amendment of his proposed Bill of Federalism:
This I could go for.
First off, Blick I love your thinking.
GC, interesting take.
But, I think all of you are correct.
While MO can say it wont enforce the laws, that doesnt stop the feds from doing so. Just ask CA and CO about federal enforcement of drug laws. What will MO do? Use cops to block the feds from doing their jobs?
But yet, it has to be done in order to begin to reign in Federal usurpations.
What works best are lawsuits. And more importantly – elections
Except for a little thing called an oath in which all officers take an oath to support “this” constitution…Article VI. (the president only has to support the Constitution–ambigious) Violating an oath, to me, is a hanging offense. Thus, the supremacy clause is negated by ones oath to support the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does the Supreme Court have the enumerated power to change any law (legislate) much less adjudicate the constitutionality of any federal law.
Violation of an oath forfeits your honor and hopefully you property and your life. Never happen as there ARE politicians.