State v. Federal Powers

[Carborendum]

I've spent a lot of the past 15 years or so praising the 10th Amendment Center.  They specifically fight for states' rights.  I'm all for that.  The states now are the only remaining line of defense against a run away federal government.

Recently, however, I see some states blowing off the dictates of the Federal Government in ways that are unconstitutional.

Bear in mind that this isn't just about right/left politics.  It is about what powers are constitutionally afforded to the Federal Gove, State Govt, and to the people.  Whenever the state or federal powers go over those lines, they are doing so without proper authority from the Constitution.  Whenever the people cross the line, we're descended upon by TPTB.  

So, what happens when federal government wants to enforce something that is not within its Constitutional powers?  The state is supposed to step in and protect them from federal powers.  And the method of stepping in can be passive (like Abbott's Come and Take Them policy about gun confiscation) or it can be active (like the placing of concertina wire along the southern border).

But what if the state wants to infringe upon the 2A?  If SCOTUS declares a state's gun ban to be unconstitutional and issues a cease and desist order to the state, but the state continues to fine and arrest people for violating the unconstitutional ban, then what can the Federal Govt. do?

@Just_A_Guy specifically, but anyone else?

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Recently, however, I see some states blowing off the dictates of the Federal Government in ways that are unconstitutional.

But what if the state wants to infringe upon the 2A? 

I've seen Oregon, then Colorado, now the majority of states officially not give a flying wet crap about federal marijuana laws.  The feds still have it classified as a Controlled Substance Act, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, prohibiting its use for any purpose.  What does the FedGov do?  Enforcement pretty much drops down to zero in the legalizing states.   The federal law isn't popular enough to enforce, or unpopular enough to get removed. 

I've also recently seen TX start out-maneuvering DHS officials around border issues.  Like, denying them access to border areas where TX folks are using razor wire and walls and whatnot.  I haven't seen arrests or fights or anything, such news would be hyper-interesting to me.  Physically blocking feds from where they want to go (by pulling a bus across the road so they can't drive their DHSmobiles), is pretty dang interesting.

[Carborendum]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've seen Oregon, then Colorado, now the majority of states officially not give a flying wet crap about federal marijuana laws.  The feds still have it classified as a Controlled Substance Act, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, prohibiting its use for any purpose.  What does the FedGov do?  Enforcement pretty much drops down to zero in the legalizing states.   The federal law isn't popular enough to enforce, or unpopular enough to get removed. 

I've also recently seen TX start out-maneuvering DHS officials around border issues.  Like, denying them access to border areas where TX folks are using razor wire and walls and whatnot.  I haven't seen arrests or fights or anything, such news would be hyper-interesting to me.  Physically blocking feds from where they want to go (by pulling a bus across the road so they can't drive their DHSmobiles), is pretty dang interesting.

It goes to nullification.

I'd argue that refusing to enforce Federal laws is quite different than enforcing state laws which have been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Refusing to enforce (like blue states declaring sanctuary status) is something I can get behind.  I disagree with that particular policy.  But I see that as state nullification of a Federal law, not the Constitution.

Nullification is about giving more freedom to people.  I'd give a wide latitude (not complete power) to either party which allows (with equal protection and application of the law) more freedom to the people and neutralizes the powers of government to enforce things if the people tend to agree with that freedom.

Nullification is NOT about encouraging additional restrictions on the people regardless of which party or level of government that is doing the restricting.

Edited January 17 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've spent a lot of the past 15 years or so praising the 10th Amendment Center.  They specifically fight for states' rights.  I'm all for that.  The states now are the only remaining line of defense against a run away federal government.

Recently, however, I see some states blowing off the dictates of the Federal Government in ways that are unconstitutional.

Bear in mind that this isn't just about right/left politics.  It is about what powers are constitutionally afforded to the Federal Gove, State Govt, and to the people.  Whenever the state or federal powers go over those lines, they are doing so without proper authority from the Constitution.  Whenever the people cross the line, we're descended upon by TPTB.  

So, what happens when federal government wants to enforce something that is not within its Constitutional powers?  The state is supposed to step in and protect them from federal powers.  And the method of stepping in can be passive (like Abbott's Come and Take Them policy about gun confiscation) or it can be active (like the placing of concertina wire along the southern border).

But what if the state wants to infringe upon the 2A?  If SCOTUS declares a state's gun ban to be unconstitutional and issues a cease and desist order to the state, but the state continues to fine and arrest people for violating the unconstitutional ban, then what can the Federal Govt. do?

@Just_A_Guy specifically, but anyone else?

Well, wasn’t it Eisenhower who sent in federal marshals to de-segregate the schools?  And I think that when Arkansas threatened to use the National Guard to keep enforcing segregation, Eisenhower federalized them—and sent them home.

I imagine that the solution is going to be tailored to the circumstances of each case. Maybe it means sending federal troops to a county jail to secure a prisoner’s release.  Maybe it means instructing the Treasury to quit making reimbursements to a particular state under some particular federal program.  Obviously, the ability of the executive and legislative branches to coordinate a response will play a role in determining what kinds of options are on the table.

IIRC, there’s a relative dearth of 10th Amendment case law from the Supreme Court.  @JohnsonJones may know more about that than I do.

[Traveler]

Laws are only as effective as the people that enforce them.  I think the great mistake we make in the United States is the belief that our Constitution will protect us and our freedom.  I am more of the mind that our laws (including our Constitution) are teaching and training martials.  Sadly, or unfortunately, it is the intelligence and morals of those we elect and give power to enforce the law that determine our freedoms and liberty according to their interpretations of the law.

 

The Traveler