Skip to comments.
The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution
Tenth Amendment Center ^
| 07-18-09
| Tenth Amendment Center
Posted on 07/18/2009 7:52:40 PM PDT by sovereignty2
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: Kansas58
The attorney for that person is then free to make the Constitutional case, and inform the jury of the State opinion on the matter. If the court is sitting in it's administrative aspect, then the Constitutional case will be considered under the presumption that the accused has voluntarily accepted federal administrative jurisdiction and it's transformation of all rights into privileges.
The accused will then be found guilty of violating the limits of his privileges, and if it is appealed all the way up, SCOTUS will find that there was no violation of authority in the restricting of those privileges, since the presumption of administrative jurisdication was never refuted.
21
posted on
07/18/2009 8:34:06 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
To: gatex
Wonder how she would rule.
She would rule that since the carbon/oxygen cycles are critically responsible for all human activity, all human activity falls under federal jurisdiction. My guess.
If an 'R' was elected in 2012 the mandate would shift to 'animal rights' or some such garbage. Having a goat testify to the Supreme Court is not out of the question.
22
posted on
07/18/2009 8:36:56 PM PDT
by
allmost
To: Future Snake Eater
No, the Gov. of Tn. said that. LOL
23
posted on
07/18/2009 8:38:36 PM PDT
by
papasmurf
(RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
To: Talisker
Nonsense.
It MIGHT go that way, but your crystal ball is a bit clouded by cynicism.
To tell a Federal District Court that the law is Unconstitutional does not, in any way, endorse the law in question.
Sometimes, the best way to challenge a law is to break that law.
24
posted on
07/18/2009 8:40:16 PM PDT
by
Kansas58
To: Talisker
As far as the Feds threatening to withhod Fed funds to Tenn. the people of Tenn. can withold income taxes. No more money sent to D.C. So there.
To: allmost
"She would rule that since the carbon/oxygen cycles are critically responsible for all human activity, all human activity falls under federal jurisdiction. My guess. " I think you have nailed it. We will be controlled by the carbon/oxygen cycle --- all will wear CO2 monitors and will be taxed on the CO2 we produce.
26
posted on
07/18/2009 8:44:48 PM PDT
by
gatex
(NRA, JPFO and Gun Owners of America)
To: gatex
Not immediately. It takes time to set up, design, and import from China.;)
27
posted on
07/18/2009 8:47:47 PM PDT
by
allmost
To: theFIRMbss
This battle is practically indistinguishable from Raich (re: California-legal pot). The battle, officially, is already lost - unless the next box is applied.
28
posted on
07/18/2009 8:49:23 PM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(John Galt was exiled.)
To: Kansas58
...your crystal ball is a bit clouded by cynicism. To tell a Federal District Court that the law is Unconstitutional does not, in any way, endorse the law in question. Sometimes, the best way to challenge a law is to break that law. I'll cop to cynicism. And I'll agree that breaking a law challenges it. But effectively? There was this little disagreement in the 1860's that indicates, at least to me, how seriously the Feds take this issue. I just don't see them backing down an inch, especially when it's so easy for their courts to dismiss it as frivolous (which is exactly the legal position of the ATF at this point, and they're not just namecalling - they mean it for the technical reason I described).
29
posted on
07/18/2009 8:50:22 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
To: Lurker
If you mean the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court already vacated that ruling (with an answer to wit "see Raich").
30
posted on
07/18/2009 8:51:26 PM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(John Galt was exiled.)
To: Talisker
Well, if they dismiss the case, that means the defendant WINS!
The prosecution generally can NOT make a habit of asking for cases to be dismissed, if the prosecution actually intends to ENFORCE a bad law.
31
posted on
07/18/2009 8:52:27 PM PDT
by
Kansas58
To: rightwingjew
As far as the Feds threatening to withhod Fed funds to Tenn. the people of Tenn. can withold income taxes. No more money sent to D.C. So there. LOL - I'm not challenging you, or disagreeing with your point. But if Tennessee did that - actually did that - there would be civil war. Because the alternative would be the collapse of Federal power, and that wouldn't be accepted without, quite literally, a fight.
32
posted on
07/18/2009 8:54:50 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
To: ctdonath2
33
posted on
07/18/2009 8:58:56 PM PDT
by
Lurker
(The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
To: sovereignty2
Bring it. Step out from behind the desk and inforce.
34
posted on
07/18/2009 9:01:56 PM PDT
by
samadams2000
(Someone important make......The Call!)
To: Kansas58
Well, if they dismiss the case, that means the defendant WINS! The prosecution generally can NOT make a habit of asking for cases to be dismissed, if the prosecution actually intends to ENFORCE a bad law. Actually, what would be subject to dismissal is Tennessee's defense. It's a Federal court issue concerning a pre-standing Federal law. So no matter what formi it takes, Tennessee (or a Tennessee litigant) would be arguing against that law, which means the Feds would take the position of applying the law in the first place, and see any response from Tennessee as a defense against violating it.
35
posted on
07/18/2009 9:03:42 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
To: theFIRMbss
Its a state court matter. Screw the feds. They have not jurisdiction. The state should just rely on the state courts and tell the feds to get bent. 10th amendment is pretty clear.
36
posted on
07/18/2009 9:08:18 PM PDT
by
BOBWADE
To: Talisker
Litigant? Not entirely wrong, but not a term commonly used in a CRIMINAL case.
The defendant would be free to argue that the Federal law was not Constitutional, on its face, and then cite, as evidence, the opinion of the Tennessee Legislature, through the enacted State Legislation.
It would be the Federal law, that would be tested in Federal Court, and the State Law would be used as evidence against the Constitutional legality of the Federal law.
37
posted on
07/18/2009 9:18:30 PM PDT
by
Kansas58
To: BOBWADE
The State, itself has no fear of prison.
It is the CITIZEN who must decide what to do.
Some brave soul needs to violate the Federal Law, and then use the State Law as support for the Constitutional argument that the Federal law is not valid.
38
posted on
07/18/2009 9:20:12 PM PDT
by
Kansas58
To: sovereignty2
39
posted on
07/18/2009 9:24:17 PM PDT
by
EdReform
(The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*CCRKBA)
To: Luke21
Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1.
Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.
This week, Tennesse Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108), authored by State Rep. Susan Lynn. The resolution Urges Congress to recognize Tennessees sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.
The House passed the resolution on 05/26 by a vote of 85-2 and the Senate passed it on 06/12 by a vote of 31-0.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/tag/tennessee-sovereignty/
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson