- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 9,218
- Reaction score
- 5,860
- Location
- St. Louis MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Nullification efforts are mounting in states across the country. Kansas recently made it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws on guns made in Kansas. A law here in Missouri recently passed with huge super-majorities, so it will come into effect regardless of whether Governor Nixon vetoes it. So my question is whether or not those laws are constitutional.
I'd like to make a distinction between those laws and the marijuana laws that have come into effect and are mentioned in the source as examples of nullification. Those laws merely legalize marijuana in the state, but do not prevent federal agents from enforcing the federal laws against it. As I understand it, this type of law was ruled constitutional in Prigg v Pennsylvania where it was said that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Rather, what I am talking about are laws that prevent even federal agents from enforcing the federal laws.
Nullification efforts are mounting in states across the country. Kansas recently made it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws on guns made in Kansas. A law here in Missouri recently passed with huge super-majorities, so it will come into effect regardless of whether Governor Nixon vetoes it. So my question is whether or not those laws are constitutional.
I'd like to make a distinction between those laws and the marijuana laws that have come into effect and are mentioned in the source as examples of nullification. Those laws merely legalize marijuana in the state, but do not prevent federal agents from enforcing the federal laws against it. As I understand it, this type of law was ruled constitutional in Prigg v Pennsylvania where it was said that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Rather, what I am talking about are laws that prevent even federal agents from enforcing the federal laws.
Nullification efforts are mounting in states across the country. Kansas recently made it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws on guns made in Kansas. A law here in Missouri recently passed with huge super-majorities, so it will come into effect regardless of whether Governor Nixon vetoes it. So my question is whether or not those laws are constitutional.
I'd like to make a distinction between those laws and the marijuana laws that have come into effect and are mentioned in the source as examples of nullification. Those laws merely legalize marijuana in the state, but do not prevent federal agents from enforcing the federal laws against it. As I understand it, this type of law was ruled constitutional in Prigg v Pennsylvania where it was said that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Rather, what I am talking about are laws that prevent even federal agents from enforcing the federal laws.
The answer depends upon the particular power that an individual state wishes to express in contravention of federal law.
Tenth Amendment: "Those 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."
Under the present administration, it appears that there would be no pathway to individual state expression of a Tenth Amendment granted power unless a State affirmatively followed the course of Nullification, thereby forcing a federal challenge.
The Federal government is not going to ask a state if it agrees with federal usurpation of that state's constitutionally granted authority.
It's an interesting question. I don't think it's unconstitutional, but I'm pretty sure it is a violation of federal law to interfere with federal officers who are performing their duty. Thus, such laws would place any officer who tries to enforce state law into the unenviable situation of having to violate federal law in order to do so.
Did you read the case Anagram mentioned in the OP? Wiki has a nice write up on it and it offers some fascinating insight into this.
States do not get to determine what violates the 10th amendment. The federal court system does. If the federal court system rules a federal law violates the 10th, then a state law "nullifying" it is unneeded. If the federal court system rules a federal law does not violate the 10th, then the state cannot use the 10th as an argument to nullify.
States do not get to determine what violates the 10th amendment. The federal court system does. If the federal court system rules a federal law violates the 10th, then a state law "nullifying" it is unneeded. If the federal court system rules a federal law does not violate the 10th, then the state cannot use the 10th as an argument to nullify.
If states can enact laws that ignore federal marijuana laws and enact sanctuary city policies then surely states can surely enact laws that repeal unconstitutional federal laws.Nullification efforts are mounting in states across the country. Kansas recently made it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws on guns made in Kansas. A law here in Missouri recently passed with huge super-majorities, so it will come into effect regardless of whether Governor Nixon vetoes it. So my question is whether or not those laws are constitutional.
I'd like to make a distinction between those laws and the marijuana laws that have come into effect and are mentioned in the source as examples of nullification. Those laws merely legalize marijuana in the state, but do not prevent federal agents from enforcing the federal laws against it. As I understand it, this type of law was ruled constitutional in Prigg v Pennsylvania where it was said that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Rather, what I am talking about are laws that prevent even federal agents from enforcing the federal laws.
1) That's not how it works. It's the legislative and executive branches that will actually do things whose constitutionality needs to be determined (e.g. pass laws, interpret laws), and the job of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of those laws.How convenient that the very same corrupt government that refuses to obey the Constitution is given the power to determine what the Constitution does or does not allow it to do; and therefore to rule that the Constitution allows it to do whatever the hell it wants to do;.
+1Study your Constitution folks, it is made up of more than the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments...
Study your Constitution folks, it is made up of more than the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments:
Article VI, 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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
+1
States can pass laws to try and force an issue or ruling, but they cannot declare by fiat that laws they pass are constitutional, or that a federal law is not constitutional.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?