Revolutionary bills being passed in Montana, Utah and Texas?

[Gaius1981]

I was watching the Glenn Beck Program while distracted, and would appreciate it if you would clear something up for me. Unless I'm mistaken, Beck said that Montana, Utah and Texas were passing some revolutionary bills that would roll back the entire progressive movement in their states if passed. Then, Judge Napolitano commented that the majority of the Supreme Court was highly likely to rule in favor of the bills. Could any of you please tell me what exactly happens if the bills are passed? Would all the progressive regulations up from the F.D.R. era until now be annulled in those states?

[nate895]

Not necessarily, but they do assert sovereignty and attempt to enforce the Constitution. In Montana, they have nullified all Federal gun laws for guns that do not leave the state.

[axiomata]

Well in Montana it was a bill recognizing their right to control intra-state commerce, especially in regards to the 2nd amendment. So they would not recognize any federal gun control legislation jurisdiction on weapons and ammunition made and sold within the state of Montana. Currently, the interstate commerce clause is used to justify most progressive legislation, and if this Montana bill was challenged in the Supreme Court and won, then it would effectively overturn the constitutional authority of many progressive programs.

Here's an article on the Montana bill: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/04/06/news/local/news05.txt

[Gaius1981]

Thanks for clearing it up for me. :)

[ItsTime]

The bill in Montana is already passed. The federal government is going to take it to court once the law is enacted. Montana WANTS them to take it all the way to the SC. The Judge thinks the SC will rule in favor of Montana and that will hinder the power of the federal government over the states.

[nate895]

The bill in Montana is already passed. The federal government is going to take it to court once the law is enacted. Montana WANTS them to take it all the way to the SC. The Judge thinks the SC will rule in favor of Montana and that will hinder the power of the federal government over the states.

Doubtful. The Supreme Court is paid for and approved by the Congress, and is a branch of the Federal government. The more power they give the Federal government, the more cases they get to decide and the better they will keep their jobs. The Federal Government having the ability through the existence of a judicial branch that has the ability to usurp the authority to judge constitutionality away from the states and the citizens is the primary reason why I am an Anti-Federalist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=190249).

[idiom]

The Supreme Court judges worry about keeping their jobs?

[nate895]

The Supreme Court judges worry about keeping their jobs?

Worse comes to worse, the House impeaches and the Senate convicts.

[axiomata]

The Supreme Court judges worry about keeping their jobs?
there is likely not a more secure job in america in fact

[nate895]

there is likely not a more secure job in america in fact

It is secure, as long as most of Congress or less than 2/3 of the Senate agrees.

[Original_Intent]

Worse comes to worse, the House impeaches and the Senate convicts.

And if they did that to judges who upheld states rights, there would be blood in the streets (I hope) or at least some changing of the guard.

[nate895]

And if they did that to judges who upheld states rights, there would be blood in the streets (I hope) or at least some changing of the guard.

I'd hope the impasse would be resolved after the states in question seceded and Congress just let them go.

[Standing Like A Rock]

I'd hope the impasse would be resolved after the states in question seceded and Congress just let them go.

Secession just makes things a whole lot easier.

[nate895]

Also, it's not like they have to throw them out, they can just reduce their salary to a mere pittance, like the King did before the Revolution.

[axiomata]

It is secure, as long as most of Congress or less than 2/3 of the Senate agrees.

No SC justice has been removed (though Chase was impeached for political reasons but not convicted). Not to say it could never happen, just not likely unless they commit a crime. We all know there's been some awful decisions that have not led to impeachment.


Also, it's not like they have to throw them out, they can just reduce their salary to a mere pittance, like the King did before the Revolution.

Nope, they can't. (The framers learned from history.) From the Constitution, Article 3 Section 1:


The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[dr. hfn]

bump! Support these bills people! Personally talk to your Congressmen!

[South Park Fan]

If the Supreme Court doesn't rule in favor of this law, I challenge them to enforce their decision.

[nate895]

No SC justice has been removed (though Chase was impeached for political reasons but not convicted). Not to say it could never happen, just not likely unless they commit a crime. We all know there's been some awful decisions that have not led to impeachment.



Nope, they can't. (The framers learned from history.) From the Constitution, Article 3 Section 1:


The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Good point, but you always have court packing. The mere threat of court packing led the Supreme Court to start complying with the New Deal.

[Carole]

Supreme Court justices are apponted for life and frankly do not have to listen to Congress. In fact they are required to be separate from Congress and the Executive. Whatever ruling they make should be according to the Constitution only. That is their only purpose and even then their rulings are just "opinions". They are not law. Since when do we have to obey an opinion?

So this could be a good test for how "lawfully" and constitutionally the SCOTUS really works.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The bill in Montana is already passed. The federal government is going to take it to court once the law is enacted. Montana WANTS them to take it all the way to the SC. The Judge thinks the SC will rule in favor of Montana and that will hinder the power of the federal government over the states.

SMILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-t

[Johnnybags]

I know there are small specialty ones but to get the FEDS in a tizzy you need a good sized operation. Would be funny if someone opened up an assembly line for shotguns out there.