Federal appeals court declares Missouri’s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’ unconstitutional

[Matt Collins]

Federal appeals court declares Missouri’s ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’ unconstitutional

https://missouriindependent.com/bri...-amendment-preservation-act-unconstitutional/

 

[WarriorLiberty]

Leftist Judges Soros hand picked no doubt.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Leftist Judges Soros hand picked no doubt.

The writer of the opinion was a George W. Bush appointee, as was one of the other two judges.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The writer of the opinion was a George W. Bush appointee, as was one of the other two judges.

And?

 

[unknown]

Courts routinely declare the constitution as unconstitutional.

Whats the problem?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

And?

I was commenting on WarriorLiberty's claim that the judges were hand picked by Soros. But if you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks GWB was a Soros puppet, have fun in your fantasyland.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Courts routinely declare the constitution as unconstitutional.

Can you please give an example?

 

[PAF]

Can you please give an example?

IRS

 

[unknown]

Can you please give an example?

The entire structure of our government and the way that it functions today from the IRS to federal policing powers to the departments and agencies which have rule making authority which have the force of law.

To our global empire, endless wars of aggression and occupation, to agencies which operate in almost complete secrecy to the mass surveillance State, to the citizen kill list aka the Disposition Matrix.

Almost without exception, our entire government operates outside the rule of law (the constitution) and what makes this possible are the courts, primarily the Supreme Fraud which simply exists to rubber stamp government expansion and power grabs.

Although never delegated the power of Judicial Review until the Supreme Fraud actually delegated this power to themselves in Marbury v Madison.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

A Missouri law declaring some federal gun regulations “invalid” is unconstitutional because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, a federal appeals court in St. Louis unanimously ruled on Monday.

Constitutional and unconstitutional is determined at the convenience of the courts. Thus, the Federal government can pass a multitude of unconstitutional laws, and the only thing that is unconstitutional is states trying to nullify those unconstitutional Federal laws.

On the other side of the hypocrisy coin, we have sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. All "constitutional", no problem with defying those Federal laws.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The supremacy clause:

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, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

It seems to me that any thorough and comprehensive ruling on a "supremacy" case would first have to determine (judge) if the Federal law, that is being contradicted by a State law, is constitutional in the first place.

I have no idea if that has ever happened in the US judicial system, but the supremacy clause does state "pursuant", thus any law that is not pursuant to the Constitution (constitutional) would not meet the standard of the supremacy clause.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

IRS

How is this an example of the courts declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

Now if you mean that the courts uphold laws you think are unconstitutional and that the law establishing the IRS is such a law, you should know that establishing the IRS is clearly constitutional pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18.

 

[PAF]

How is this an example of the courts declaring the Constitution unconstitutional?

Now if you mean that the courts uphold laws you think are unconstitutional and that the law establishing the IRS is such a law, you should know that establishing the IRS is clearly constitutional pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18.

Legalese jargon, you win I lose.

Top 5 Unsuccessful Arguments Against Income Taxes

The IRS needs to be abolished, and that is all that I will say about it. It will not be achieved by politely "voting" in a booth, or endlessly constructing legal arguments back-and-forth among "expert attorneys"; it will require a threshold of the people rising up in revolt.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Although never delegated the power of Judicial Review until the Supreme Fraud actually delegated this power to themselves in Marbury v Madison.

I've explained this before. The Constitution explicitly delegated to the federal courts the "judicial Power of the United States". This power clearly includes the power to determine the applicable law in a given case (that's what courts routinely do). If a party claims that a law violates the Constitution, a court must necessarily decide that issue. The Marbury case is a classic example. Marbury brought an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court seeking to have his commission as a justice of the peace delivered to him. Although the statute Marbury was relying on (the Judiciary Act of 1789) authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, the Constitution did not give the Court original jurisdiction over Marbury's case (the Court's original jurisdiction is limited to "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party"). So what was the Court to do? Issue the writ although it had no jurisdiction to do so? Which is supreme, an act of Congress or the Constitution? The answer is obvious:

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure...

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

...Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 178-180 (1803)

In other words, the "judicial Power of the United States" includes the power of judicial review.

 

[unknown]

I've explained this before. The Constitution explicitly delegated to the federal courts the "judicial Power of the United States". This power clearly includes the power to determine the applicable law in a given case (that's what courts routinely do). If a party claims that a law violates the Constitution, a court must necessarily decide that issue. The Marbury case is a classic example. Marbury brought an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court seeking to have his commission as a justice of the peace delivered to him. Although the statute Marbury was relying on (the Judiciary Act of 1789) authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, the Constitution did not give the Court original jurisdiction over Marbury's case (the Court's original jurisdiction is limited to "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party"). So what was the Court to do? Issue the writ although it had no jurisdiction to do so? Which is supreme, an act of Congress or the Constitution? The answer is obvious:



In other words, the "judicial Power of the United States" includes the power of judicial review.

I've explained this before.

The author of the Declaration of Independence says you're wrong.

And he states explicitly why you're wrong:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...se-Of-SCOTUS&p=7134530&viewfull=1#post7134530


Now I'm going to state another fact.

Not an opinion, not an interpretation, FACT:


We have an unlawful, illegitimate government which operates far outside of its constitutional limits.


Their paper thin cover is provided by the fraudulent courts, primarily the Supreme Fraud.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

I was commenting on WarriorLiberty's claim that the judges were hand picked by Soros. But if you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks GWB was a Soros puppet, have fun in your fantasyland.

I was expecting that you mention that "Oh but it was a GW Bush appointee" yet you had some Rhinos pushing gun control because they arent real conservatives..

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The author of the Declaration of Independence says you're wrong.

That was Jefferson's opinion. Federalist 78 explains why he was wrong.

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

The fact that the Court cannot enforce its rulings but must rely on the Executive Branch to do so; the fact that Congress controls its appellate jurisdiction and its budget; and the fact that Congress must approve all appointments to the Court are sufficient rebuttals to Jefferson's concerns.

For what it's worth, we've had judicial review for over 200 years and there's been no groundswell to eliminate it.

I should also point out that those who bitch and moan about the Court's declaring federal and state laws unconstitutional also bitch and moan when it doesn't.

 

[unknown]

Tom Woods provides good insight on the Supremacy Clause.

https://tomwoods.com/what-did-the-supremacy-clause-mean/

"Here’s what the people were told it meant at the state ratifying conventions, which is what matters.

(I’ll be a sport and not even mention the proto-nullification arguments made at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, which settle the argument, though you can get the story in my Nullification or in Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America.)

Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s convention: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law.

The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added).

In Federalist #33, Hamilton added: “It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution….”

Thomas McKean, at the Pennsylvania convention: “The meaning [of the Supremacy Clause] which appears to be plain and well expressed is simply this, that Congress have the power of making laws upon any subject over which the proposed plan gives them a jurisdiction, and that those laws, thus made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be binding upon the states” (emphasis added).

James Iredell, at the First North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people.

If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

 

[unknown]

Just as enlightening are the comments from the above article, in this case re: the Supreme Fraud.

Perfect:


"As a federal practice lawyer for almost 30 years now, I am very familiar with the PLAIN MEANING of the so-called "supremacy clause."

One needs to read EVERY WORD and try to give meaning to all words. When one does that, one is left with no option other than the one Tom propounds, i.e., ONLY laws passed "in pursuance" of the Constitution are binding.

The problem comes in the question: Who gets to decide what 'in pursuance' means?

Sadly, this question was not directly addressed and the US Supreme Court quickly decided that it gets to decide the question in 1803. See Marbury v. Madison.

Since the issue was not addressed in the Constitution [it actually was addressed in the debates], I'm not at all comfortable with the body who decided the issue concluding that THEY get to decide.

There's far too much conflict of interest and I seriously doubt that would have been approved if it had been proffered as part of the Constitution.

I think it was Tom who proposed the hypothetical that his mother gets to decide any disputes he has with his neighbor. Same problem here.

The Supremes are also too far removed from the people and far too politicized to be able to make this crucial determination. Experience shows us all too clearly just how bad an idea this has become.

Wickard v. Filburn was the case in law school that opened my eyes on this issue.

The Supremes cannot be trusted."

 

[fisharmor]

Oh boy do I have thoughts.

The first one I have is this - who cares whether the federal government says what states do in their courts is unconstitutional?
Every state has courts that prosecute people unnecessarily all day every day.
Nobody ever says boo to that. So the MO AG should gather the testicular fortitude to go ahead with prosecutions.
Let's watch the system eat some of its own for a change. They can ruin regular non-costumed citizens' lives all the time with impunity - so what if they do it to some LEOs once in a while?

This seems like evidence that Republicans are actually trying to do something but the reality is they're just putting on a puppet show. They never intended to follow through on this because if they did, they would have. Throw those LEOs into the system and force them into a bullshit plea deal just like they do for everyone else.