TexasCHLforum.com

APynckel wrote:
Yes, really. Find where in the constitution it says that SCOTUS is to be the final say on constitutionality for me. No, please go ahead, i'll wait.

Right there in the same paragraph where it says that nothing that isn't expressly stated can ever be OK.

You're entitled to your views. It makes no difference to me, you understand. I don't begrudge anyone their eccentricities. I treasure my own so. But your view is merely that.

All I am pointing out is that there is 200+ years of Constitutional Law, which has been argued and debated and ruled upon and voted upon, all to the contrary, mostly by the most learned and experienced legal thinkers in the country. There are few legal principles more solidly entrenched in our law. Someone has to be the final authority, to interpret the Constitution, measure new laws against it, resolve the clash of vital Constitutional interests, and decide. Almost everyone agrees that the Supreme Court is it. If you chose to challenge it, that would be what we lawyers sometimes call "an uphill fight."

APynckel wrote:LOL at the John Marshall quote as he is unconstitutionally using a power never delegated to him, to give him the power he is using. The states should have just 100% laughed that ruling 6 feet under.

Most ridiculous court ruling ever.

Really?

Perhaps it falls under the "fool most of the people all the time", or something.

In any event, it has never been successfully challenged, has been the law now for 200 years, and is likely to remain so. The Court's power to be the final arbitrator is firmly entrenched in our law and body politic, except of course by the Commies in this administration who wish to ignore it.

APynckel wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

APynckel wrote:http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... nors-desk/

Alaska’s HB69, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, had it’s third reading in the senate last night, April 10th, and passed with a 17-3 vote. It returned to the house this morning, where they voted 34-5 to concur with the Senate version. The bill will be transmitted to Governor Parnell’s desk.

If Parnell signs it into law, it would nullify a large swath of unconstitutional federal power over the right to keep and bear arms. It begins with the premise that violations of the 2nd Amendment are not law at all

C'mon Texas! Let's follow suit!

Federal law would trump local law, All what states can do is not to enforce or corporate with Feds in their investigations.

Unconstitutional law is just that, unconstitutional. It was never intended for SCOTUS to be able to dictate constitutionality to the states.

It has been the accepted legal view for nearly two centuries.

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."

—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

—Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 1803