• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Mood of country is Going to Start Demandiing

LaMidRighter said:
Not true Cap. The tenth amendment specifically allows for nullification. In fact, the legalization of marijuana in the western states is showing just that, the states are contending that the federal cannot prevent them from legalizing marijuana and are doing so as we speak. The federal are not contesting it with any success. Also, up until about 20 years or so my state was the last to change the drinking age to a universal 21 and up, one could consume in public at a class B establishment as long as they were 18 or over. The federal had to threaten the withholding of highway funds to force compliance because they had no legal recourse under the Supremacy clause, they couldn't legally force states to adhere to the federal 21+ law so they tied in money, that is coercion.

No, the supremacy clause is not a catchall available to the federal, they must have that power reserved to them. Personally, I would like to see the states start sticking it to the federal on that and forcing losses in court. I also wouldn't mind in lieu of fair decisions calling a state convention and kicking the legs out from under this runaway federal.
Click to expand...

No, the Supremacy Clause over rules the 10th on this issue, because the 10th doesn't apply. If the federal government connects the law to the Constitution, then the 10th is irrelevant to the issue. As far as the drinking age issue, I do not believe that the Supremacy Clause could be applicable in that case.

And you and I certainly differ on where the power in this country should lie. I would prefer to see the individual powers of the states quelled so we don't have 50 little fiefdoms.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The Supremacy Clause has been used to justify federally created laws before... and has been used by SCOTUS to support those laws. A law only needs to have a connection to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It NEEDS to have a connection to the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution which allows what Jet57 is wanting to happen. In fact, it rather explicitly states the opposite.

CaptainCourtesy said:
It depends on whether you have a President who supports the court's decision. If you do, executive action will occur. Look at Brown v. Board of Education.
Click to expand...

Yeah, one of the few times that force was used by the federal government. I don't think that this particular subject would have quite the same outcome though. But you are right, it is a possibility, with the right President in office. Obama definitely would support it. And if Hillary is elected I've no doubt that she would also.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure, and this is something they could do also... but it would require a President to support this.
Click to expand...

Far easier for a President to accept doing this than the above one. ;) However it wouldn't be up to the President. It'd be helpful to have the support of the POTUS yes, but not necessary since Congress holds the purse strings, not the President.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Exactly. It NEEDS to have a connection to the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution which allows what Jet57 is wanting to happen. In fact, it rather explicitly states the opposite.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not arguing that this is possible. I've been pretty clear that it isn't because of that.

Yeah, one of the few times that force was used by the federal government. I don't think that this particular subject would have quite the same outcome though. But you are right, it is a possibility, with the right President in office. Obama definitely would support it. And if Hillary is elected I've no doubt that she would also.
Click to expand...

I doubt this issue would get the support of even the most liberal President. It's too ingrained in the Constitution. The only way that something like this could happen is for either the 2nd Amendment to be revoked or a new Amendment to supersede it. Not going to happen.

Far easier for a President to accept doing this than the above one. ;) However it wouldn't be up to the President. It'd be helpful to have the support of the POTUS yes, but not necessary since Congress holds the purse strings, not the President.
Click to expand...

Hence the checks and balances of our system.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, the Supremacy Clause over rules the 10th on this issue, because the 10th doesn't apply. If the federal government connects the law to the Constitution, then the 10th is irrelevant to the issue. As far as the drinking age issue, I do not believe that the Supremacy Clause could be applicable in that case.

And you and I certainly differ on where the power in this country should lie. I would prefer to see the individual powers of the states quelled so we don't have 50 little fiefdoms.
Click to expand...
Completely false Cap. The federal must have that power granted up to a full repeal of the tenth, the states could forgo funds, tell the federal to go pound sand, and there is nothing further the federal could legally do. The key word is legally, sure, they could declare war on the states, they could attempt to arrest state and local officials but any honest court would nullify that charge.
 
jet57 said:
So, things are beginning to take a turn on a national level now, and the public is beginning to demand action and they're (we) are going to get it, because politicians want to be reelected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/gun-debate-yields-page-1-editorial.html?_r=0

"Train leaving on track nine!!"
Click to expand...

Some anecdotal evidence as to the mood of the country:

A hair dresser in Hollywood launches into a diatribe about how stupid gun free zones are. A hairdresser ... in Hollywood.

A headline news studio in Hollywood. A black man takes the mike and says he agrees with the one gun freedom activist on the panel. A woman stands up and asks why she should be defenseless in the face of terrorism.

You can't find ammo in stock anywhere.

The instant background check system got bogged down under a very heavy load of new applications.

Hillary Clinton has stopped talking about gun control. Now she talks about killing terrorists.

NRA membership is up.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Completely false Cap. The federal must have that power granted up to a full repeal of the tenth, the states could forgo funds, tell the federal to go pound sand, and there is nothing further the federal could legally do. The key word is legally, sure, they could declare war on the states, they could attempt to arrest state and local officials but any honest court would nullify that charge.
Click to expand...

There is no repeal of the 10th. If the issue is a Constitutional one, the Supremacy Clause over rules the 10th Amendment. This really isn't disputable.
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)
Click to expand...

:lamo

So you try to use ridicule as an excuse for having no answer and admitting defeat. That somebody sees through you puerile ploys to avoid you find humorous does not make it in the least not true. You admit your claims were false. Thanks.

So here's the claim:

So, the simple challenge is - what forces? What's the prediction? Who made it?
Click to expand...

I take it you have never ever read the declaration of independence

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Found wanting again.

The poster has never answered the questions, So the claim is an empty suit. It is an assertion that cannot be validated.
Click to expand...

It was answered by asking you why the constitution contained the 2nd as law dictates it must have a purpose. What is the purpose of the 2nd? Apparently you cannot answer that which also makes you unsuitable to make any claims about the 2nd.

Therefore your attempt to judge a finding of fact is also an empty suit.
Click to expand...

Babbling again.

Yes, reading is a very important tool for understanding a subject that one wishes to engage in. So a suggestion of 'boning up' on a subject can hardly be considered ad hom.
Click to expand...

Yes it is which is why you should not be making any claims about the 2nd

YOU must know what the poster is referring to eh? Perhaps you can quote the predictions and who made them and what forces were documented.
Click to expand...

There it was in the DOI all the time.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
There is no repeal of the 10th. If the issue is a Constitutional one, the Supremacy Clause over rules the 10th Amendment. This really isn't disputable.
Click to expand...
The supremacy clause only applies to powers granted Cap, there is no question on that.
 
Crimefree said:
:lamo

So you try to use ridicule as an excuse for having no answer and admitting defeat. That somebody sees through you puerile ploys to avoid you find humorous does not make it in the least not true. You admit your claims were false. Thanks.



I take it you have never ever read the declaration of independence

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Found wanting again.



It was answered by asking you why the constitution contained the 2nd as law dictates it must have a purpose. What is the purpose of the 2nd? Apparently you cannot answer that which also makes you unsuitable to make any claims about the 2nd.



Babbling again.



Yes it is which is why you should not be making any claims about the 2nd



There it was in the DOI all the time.
Click to expand...

You can't answer it either. Do you now why you guys cannot answer that question? It's simple really; said forces do not exist. Your source quote does nothing to validate the fact that you guys on the right make it up as you go along and when challenged cannot produce any credible evidence.

So; what forces and what predictions? The D of I makes no predictions.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I think I said that.
Click to expand...
From what I gathered you said that if the federal passes a law it is supreme to the states. That is not the case, the federal does have supremacy if their power is explicitly spelled out in the constitution, barring that they have no authority, they could pass a law but states can ignore it, and yes, any agent engaging in enforcement after a state says no would be making at minimum a false arrest. They could also face jurisdictional grievances and other felonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom