Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mmarsh Suppose they secede, then what? Its not like NY, CA, IL, or FL. Both of those states rely heavily on Federal aid. Neither state is what I'd call critical to the standing of the USA. They would suffer a lot more by leaving the Union then visa versa.
And BTW, since when did states have the right to blackmail the Federal Government? Due to the extremely conservative nature of the USSC (there is only 1 liberal on the bench) I don't think they will uphold the DC gun ban, but if they do, people will just have to accept it. |
Oklahoma is stating it's reasons under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Quote:
| 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. |
The main issue is that the Federal Government has over stepped their authority in some matters. Such is the simple fact of drinking age, speed limits, school system, etc.... Others are immigration law. Oklahoma feels that the Feds need to back off. Which in my opinion, they are correct. The Feds do need to back off. This nation was founded under the idea that the Federal Government does our international and national issues. Everyday events are handled by the States. Hasn't happened since the War of Northern Aggression.
As for Montana. They feel that if the Supreme Court rules against an individual-rights interpretation of the second amendment. Then the compact between the United States and Montana would be violated, and that the state "reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law".
Basically that the Federal Government violated it's end of the deal when Montana joined the Union as a State. That's Montana's issue.