Alaska-Land of the Free!

[Zimobog]

Sure, Badaxe, as I said I am skeptical.

[Zimobog]

The difference between Alaska's HB 69 and those other states laws is that the entire purpose of this law is to provide criminal penalties to feds who arrest law abiding citizens.

Other states, when attempting to nullify federal law, have left the citizen exposed to liability under federal law. AFFA and HB 69 both address the states roll in defence of yhe citizen from federal prosecution.

[Mdisch]

I'm extremely skeptical - I really doubt a statewide law that goes against federal law will be passed. And I have no clue how it would work in effect. 'Cause technically the federal agents have the right to arrest the local police for breaking federal law, and vice versa - It would be chaos.

[Crow]

Well, If I'm not wrong the constitution supports states rights.... And the FF's never envisioned a gov that would federally persecute a state for doing something the people of that state condoned. You'll see buddy it won't be long before the federal government crashes your party as well.....

The founding fathers never intended for the states to have power over the Federal government. If that were the case, we would still be operating under the "Articles of Confederation".

The founding fathers realised the flaws in the AoC, and they eventually formed the Constitution (of course, that was no easy task because there was heated debate amongst the "Federalists" and "Antifederalists"). Sounds familiar, eh?

So technically, we've had not one, but two constitutions in our history. The first one didn't work out so well, so we scrapped it and began anew.

[Crow]

I'm extremely skeptical - I really doubt a statewide law that goes against federal law will be passed. And I have no clue how it would work in effect. 'Cause technically the federal agents have the right to arrest the local police for breaking federal law, and vice versa - It would be chaos.

Well, we don't even know if the semi-auto rifle ban will pass. It appears unlikely given the political makeup of congress.

This bill may very well be moot when all is said and done.

-----------

Even if such a ban passes at the Federal level, I highly doubt that the Feds will intervene against the citizenry (in fact, I'm almost certain of it). Now, whether they decide to go after the State of Alaska is another story...

[Zimobog]

The founding fathers never intended for the states to have power over the Federal government. If that were the case, we would still be operating under the "Articles of Confederation".

The FF seperated the powers very clearly between Article 1 section 8 (that which the Federal government was allowed to do), Article 1 section 9 (that which no government could do), and Article 1 section 10 (that which no State government could do). The Bill of Rights includes rights recognized by the FF as being outside the jurisdiction of ANY government (as in inalienable rights, endowed by the Creator ie Nature, God, whatever you believe in).

The FF went even further in the BOR to say in Article 9:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."

Meaning that the just because certain rights were listed as "retained by the people" that those rights were not listed in total. Like we all have a right to marry who we want, it wasn't listed but it existed. We have a right to breath, to travel, to have a nose on our face. They didn't list them all.

In fact, Article 10 says:

The 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.

It clearly states here that all powers not delegated in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution in the enumeration of powers were to be held by the States and the people. It's all right there in the Bill of Rights and Constitution in plain English clear as a bell.

[Crow]

Yes, you see that the power is divided. States do not have more power than Federal government.

States have some sovereignty, but it is limited. In other words..... State's rights can only go so far (as it should be).

....... and the only reason we have a Bill of Rights is due to the efforts of the Anti-Federalists. Federalists did not feel it was necessary (separation of powers already in place, and fears that if the government can specify rights; then it can also take away rights).

-------------

It's not as simple as reading the Constitution and that's that... The Constitution has layers of depth (and again, this is intentional).

[Zimobog]

The States and the people retain all rights not delegated to the Federal Government in A1S8.

Fed- limited to what it "can do" by 17 paragraphs.
State- limited to what they "cannot do" by 4 paragraphs, but can do almost anything else.

Neither can violate the individual rights of any citizen, unless that person is found guilty of a crime.

Nature/Creator made Mankind. Mankind made the Constitution and the States. The Constitution made the Federal Government.

The Federal Government cannot be over the Constitution, nor the Constitution over Man, nor Man over Nature/Creator.

[Crow]

The States and the people retain all rights not delegated to the Federal Government in A1S8.

Fed- limited to what it "can do" by 17 paragraphs.
State- limited to what they "cannot do" by 4 paragraphs, but can do almost anything else.

Neither can violate the individual rights of any citizen, unless that person is found guilty of a crime.

Nature/Creator made Mankind. Mankind made the Constitution and the States. The Constitution made the Federal Government.

The Federal Government cannot be over the Constitution, nor the Constitution over Man, nor Man over Nature/Creator.

... and I point back to Article 1, Section 8's elasticity. You might disagree with the method, you may find it wrong; but that's the way it works. And if the Supreme Court does not intervene and declare said act Unconstitutional, then it IS Constitutional.

We have checks and balances, so I can't envision any major abuses. But as I've said before... Political outcomes are determined by individual preferences (again, not referring to the People; but the Legislature) and institutional procedures.

I firmly believe that the Department of Education is constitutional as education relates to the country's economy (pursuant to the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 and the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article 1, Section 8).

[Zimobog]

Your gonna break that elastic if you keep stretching it that far!

[Crow]

Checks and balances, checks and balances.

[Zimobog]

Lol, well that was fun. Thanks.

[Crow]

Likewise.

It gets rather dull debating this sort of stuff with legislators, so it's refreshing for me to get into it with a fellow snusser.

[sgreger1]

Loving this thread.

[Zimobog]

It's the oldest debate in American history. It's the debate that caused two Civil wars in America. It's the debate between the Deontological and Consequentialist schools of Constitutionalism! Huzzah!