Originally Posted by MontyB

Because making threats you cant back up is little more than pandering to ill informed masses.

I am sure it resonates with poorly educated gun toting types but thats about it, they cannot back up their threats nor can the implement it so in the end it is little more than politicians playing politics at the expense of the stupid.

There are other far more effective ways of getting a point across.

Yeah.... Um... No.

Replace Oklahoma and Montana with Northland Region and Auckland Region.

This is States of the United States of America tell the federal government that there is a problem. It's the same as if two Regions of New Zealand told the Federal Government that there is a problem.

Many states have tried getting their points across and it hasn't worked.

Wrong target:

1. Most New Zealanders would happily wave goodbye to Auckland in fact I am sure I could raise enough money and labour from donations to dig a bloody great ditch to separate Auckland from New Zealand.

2. New Zealand is not a federation of states therefore there is no capacity for a province to separate from New Zealand.

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.

Or secede. But neither of these two states have the capability of doing so.
It'd be interesting to see what happens if they do.

I'd say theirs at least 5 liberals on the USSC, the same 5 that voted for the terrorist prisoners last week.

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.

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.

AikiRooster

Thats why we are a democracy not dictatorship, even scumbags have rights. Your wrong, only Ginsburg is liberal Democrat, Breyer is moderate Democrat, Souter is a moderate Republican. Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia are all very conservative Republicans.

5.56

We have had this arguement before, back in 1789 it was called the Articles of Confederation. The Articles allowed for strong state governments and a weak federal governement. It was a miserable failure which came crashing down 7 years later. Why? because the states constantly fought each other. Va and Mass almost went to war against each other over a land dispute. Thats why its a bad idea. What Oklahoma and Montana wants is a return to that system where the states dictate to the Federal Government, that just isn't going to happen. In the US Constitution, Federal law overrides state law, unless that Federal law is deemed unconstitutional by the USSC. The US government isn't a salad bar, you cannot pick and choose the parts you like and ignore the rest. Otherwise ALL the states will start to ignore parts of Federal law they don't like. What would happen if NY decided it wasn't constitutionally obligated to fund (via taxes) the Iraq war anymore?

If the USSC rules against those states they have no choice but to accept. If they want to secede, fine. But its an empty threat, both have very small populations, and are mostly either agrarian or wild. Either way the impact to the USA is minimal. The loss of federal funding would be more devastating to those states than the loss of the 2nd amendment.

And their getting their balls all tied up for nothing. The current gun bans only apply to CERTAIN large cities. Nobody has the intention of banning guns in the countryside. Its both unnecessary and political suicide. Its not even been discussed except in a few fringe circles. The idea of 'gun-grabbers' is mostly a figment of the NRA imagination.

The Justices may be labeled whatever they are labeled by the media types, but I think it's more clear to look how they vote on issues more to be able tell truthfully what they are. The five that voted for terrorists, they are liberals, at least they were that day.

Originally Posted by AikiRooster

The Justices may be labeled whatever they are labeled by the media types, but I think it's more clear to look how they vote on issues more to be able tell truthfully what they are. The five that voted for terrorists, they are liberals, at least they were that day.

Constitutional Law has always been an interest to me. I invite you to read the records of both Stevens and Kennedy they ruled against the President in this case, but overall they are very conservative.

Secondly, a single ruling (which you obviously disagree with) does not make a Justice liberal or a conservative.