Missouri bill would void Federal law

[Dillon]

Not sure did I understand you correctly, but you're justifying its existance in the Constituion, so people could defend against their own rogue Government?

The constitution was formed for the purpose of making sure Americans ourselves could be free and if it means that our own government takes these freedoms then the people still have the right from the founding fathers to take it back, from all oppression foreign or domestic.

[Cofiliano]

Yeah, but if your own Government takes any of your freedoms, they're violating the Constituion as it is, so having the 2nd amendmend, wouldn't mean anything as the same people would have fought against that sort of Government, irrelevant is that right given on some peace of paper or not, just like it always happens trough out history in all other countries in the world, and they didn't had it that in the Constituion.


Something else is the reason of having it, but that's a big discussion and off topic atm.

[Leon.]

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
Compared to the rest of the world, citizens as individuals are hardly "oppressed" by the government at all, and the accusation of it being a rogue government is a little... far-fetched. The duty of the government is to serve the people, protect the people, and act in the best interest in the people. The right to bear arms was brought up in the event that the new government the Constitution's authors drafted would fail to do so, in which case, the citizens would be able to rise up. Since the civil war, there hasn't been a single noteworthy uprising, because there simply isn't a reason to uprise. We're basically spoiled brats.

[EliteTerm]

Not sure did I understand you correctly, but you're justifying its existance in the Constituion, so people could defend against their own rogue Government?

I'm sure you're aware of what the U.S. Government has been doing the last several decades.

[Dillon]

I'm sure you're aware of what the U.S. Government has been doing the last several decades.

I'm quite aware and I wouldn't want to bring a political fire fight here, as a citizen when I say there are massive problems with the US Government I then watch other countries governments, what I find is problems everywhere has problems the government of the United States happens to have a clause that allows us to step up in the case of bigger problems, such as one I'm sure your familiar with with the police and ballot boxes. The US is still a nice country and has some really great qualities of it's citizens that help make it a great country when that perception is simply lost then it is all lost. The dream is still achievable here.

[SugarD]

Supremacy Clause. Federal law trumps State law. Up to the Federal gov. if they wanna pursue it or not.

Yes and no. Constitutional Law has the final say over any of them, and states can act in a position to legalize things locally in their state that would still be illegal under Federal Law, so long as it does not violate the U.S. Constitution. They can also do things in support of the U.S. Constitution under specific circumstances should they feel that Federal Law is trying to break it.

For example in the first type, California legalized medical marijuana. It is still illegal under Federal Law, but not State Law. That means if the law is followed correctly in the state, California citizens can use medical marijuana without any state or local authorities arresting them. HOWEVER, federal authorities can still step in to make arrests based on federal versions of the crime. That being said, if the State and Federal Laws conflicted, and the state wanted to challenge the U.S. Government on it, they could so long as the U.S. Constitution doesn't disallow it.

Now for the second type, the general idea here is that Federal Law is trying to override Constitutional Law, and State Law does not agree with this in the states listed above. For this reason, as per Constitutional AND Federal Law, State Law may banish the enforcement of said Federal Law(s) in their state, should they feel it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The state can also legally fight against the Federal Law in U.S. Supreme Court, challenging its constitutionality, just as Federal Law can do to State Law in the state's Supreme Court. Federal Laws can still be enforced by federal authorities in the states that banished it, however it would give state and local authorities the right to legally arrest the federal authorities enforcing said crimes for state-based charges.


As a side note, Federal Laws often also differ greatly from State Laws, hence why these conflicts don't usually draw much attention to the media, with the exception of some cases. For example, some states regarding the use of marijuana, like California, may allow personal use up to a certain amount before stepping in to make an arrest, as anything lower would simply be a petty crime ticket, or a misdemeanor that is thrown out in court. However, although the Federal Law disallows any personal use of marijuana, (just as state law usually does in most cases), federal authorities will not step in to actually make an arrest until it is found to be being used/sold/possessed/bought/made in a very large amount, else they leave the state authorities to handle it. This is done to prevent local and national laws from causing conflicts in arrests by double-charging someone, as well as preventing the over or under use of Local/Town, City, County, District, State, and Federal Law Enforcement. You obviously wouldn't want one state's State Police handling national drug import crimes, or the FBI/DEA dealing with a recreational marijuana smoker hiding behind Taco Bell, lighting up his pipe.

(Please also remember that the marijuana examples are just examples to compare the crimes and laws. The gun law situation is a bit different in itself, as you're comparing types, and not amounts, of something in question.)

[Leon.]

Does the US Consitution say "Thou shalt not kill" in it? The answer is no. Does this mean if, hypothetically, I were a state, I can legalize murder and take the Federal government to the Supreme Court if they disagree because nothing in the Constitution says anything about murder? After all, the 10th Amendment guarantees the States the right to legislate in areas not reserved by the Federal government, meaning they have the power to legislate in their "police powers."

[SugarD]

Does the US Consitution say "Thou shalt not kill" in it? The answer is no. Does this mean if, hypothetically, I were a state, I can legalize murder and take the Federal government to the Supreme Court if they disagree because nothing in the Constitution says anything about murder? After all, the 10th Amendment guarantees the States the right to legislate in areas not reserved by the Federal government, meaning they have the power to legislate in their "police powers."

The Constitution says everyone has the right to life.

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html