Federal Court Decides: Federal Rangers Supreme

In a move that would make Joseph Story and John Marshall rise from their graves and offer him high-fives, 10th Circuit Judge David Nuffer made himself the sole arbiter of federal and state powers, ruling last Friday that federal park rangers’ authority supersedes that of the State of Utah in matters concerning local law.nuffer

Gov. Gary Herbert signed  HB155, on April 3. The new law prohibits federal Land Management officers from acting as agents of state and local law by “limiting the authority of specified federal employees to exercise law enforcement authority within Utah.” The bill came in response to officers of the Forestry Service taking it upon themselves to administer local traffic laws, making such unauthorized actions class-B misdemeanors; punishable by a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.

We don’t want Utah citizens going before a federal magistrate for a speeding ticket,” said Utah AG Swallow, in the AG’s press release on May 13. “Federal officers should be enforcing federal laws and state and local officers should be enforcing state and local laws. We are concerned about the federal government once again encroaching on states rights and we will vigorously defend the constitutionality of HB 155.[Emphasis added.]

Federal attorneys promptly sued, and on May 13th, Nuffer granted a temporary injunction, stopping the law from taking effect. Last Friday’s ruling extends the injunction until the issue is settled at trial.

Details

New England Nullification Tradition Marches On

Though many living in New England today might be loathe to admit it, there is a long history of nullification being used in the region to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. This week, the town of Sedgwick, Maine voted to carry on that proud tradition by nullifying certain federal agricultural regulations.

They did so through what might be the most legitimate form of democratic expression left in America: the New England town meeting. (Which have been held in the Sedgwick town hall since 1794.)

According to one report, the residents of Sedgwick voted to enact a law that not only permits

“Sedgwick citizens…to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,”

but declares that

Details

Supreme Muddled Thinking: Justice Breyer gets the 2nd Amendment Wrong

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer demonstrated some typically muddled progressive reasoning on Fox News Sunday, contending the founders would have supported modern gun control laws and sided with the dissenters in the 2008 case D.C. v. Heller.

In a nutshell, Breyer says the framers (James Madison in particular) put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, but they didn’t really mean it.

He argues that the Second Amendment was included simply to ensure ratification of the Constitution, but that the framers didn’t really philosophically believe in protecting the individual right to bear arms.

He buoys his argument by claiming “most historians” agree.

“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.”

As if Breyer really has any idea what “most” historians think.

But I digress.

In fact, Madison wrote in Federalist 46 that an armed citizenry provides a check against overreaching government. And any fair reading of the founders reveals a fear of centralized power and that they advocated for an armed citizenry to provide balance and protect liberty.

Details

Federal judge: Challenge to ObamaCare mandate can go to trial

Possibly the biggest story of the day, even though it’s barely getting coverage: A federal judge ruled Thursday that parts of a lawsuit by 20 states seeking to void the Obama administration’s health care overhaul can go to trial, saying he wants hear additional arguments from both sides over whether the law is unconstitutional. In a…

Details

It’s Time to Nullify Federal Court Decisions

As a supporter of laws like SB1070 and other state and local efforts to curb illegal immigration I am disturbed by the trend that federal courts are now weeding through state laws and deciding if they are constitutional or not. Whether or not you support state efforts to curb illegal immigration you have to agree that the courts have lost all prudence in this matter. They now want to chop through state laws and decide what is permissible for them to have and not have.

Pardon me but don’t the courts only have one function and that is to weigh the facts and punish those who break the law. The way a court system works is that the government brings the accused before it where they weigh the facts presented by the state in order to decide if the accused broke the law. They then meet out punishment based on what the law says.

Notice I said they don’t decide punishment because that has already been decided by the law. In fact, everything the court does is decided by law. The courts have this power because of the constitution and the same constitution gives them the power to judge the law as well as the facts. This is stated in Article III section 2 of the constitution.

Details

The Courts are Part of the Problem

Thomas E. Woods speaks on the topic of Nullification at the Nullify Now conference (http://www.nullifynow.com) in Fort Worth, TX. Tom will be a keynote speaker on 10-10-10 (in celebration of the 10th amendment!) in Orlando, Florida. Get your tickets to Nullify Now! Orlando here – http://www.nullifynow.com/orlando/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS “The federal government will…

Details

Courts aren’t the final arbiter

Opponents of state sovereignty and the states’ power to nullify unconstitutional law argue that federal courts have held nullification unconstitutional.

Jillian Rayfield, in a brilliantly unbiased article *insert sarcastic tone* on TMPDC.com writes:

This “tenther” group touts state sovereignty and nullification — the idea that a state can override a federal law it deems unconstitutional (a notion that has been consistently rejected in federal courts). (Emphasis added)

But doesn’t it seem a little fox guarding the henhouseish to deem a branch of the federal government the final arbiter of what is or isn’t Constitutional? Can we really expect agents of the federal government to protect the states and the people from federal tyranny?

Details

Gay Marriage and Immigration

I have many problems with the US constitution, but it is the legal regime we are told we live under. Marriage, to take one example, is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and therefore is no business of the federal congress, the federal courts, nor any other arm of the DC leviathan. The feds, according to their own constitution, have only the powers they are specifically given. Some black-robed occupier in California may not overturn a popular vote against gay marriage, nor throw out a voters’ ban on welfare for illegal aliens, to take an earlier example. On the other hand, the Massachusetts. federal judge who ruled that marriage is none of the federal government’s business, and therefore Massachusetts may enact it, despite the defense of marriage act, had a strong case. He is ignored, however, while the crazed California judge is heralded.

Unfortunately, in the American system, there are only states rights. This was a mistake. There should also be town rights, county rights, etc. as Jefferson noted. If San Francisco wants gay marriage, so be it. If Dubuque does not, so be it.

Government took over marriage, a matter for the Church and subsequently other private bodies, in the 18th century, with the expected negative results. But having taken it over, it ought to be decentralized, not nationalized.

Details