Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/mississippi_sovereignty_bill.php I'm trying to figure out if this is satire or not. It' just seems really out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Neuralize? "We just need a routine retinal scan for our files; please look directly into the light." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Earlier this week, the bill was referred to the House Constitution Committee. hehe...heh....heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm not a lawyer...but good for the state of Mississippi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Come In Peace Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Four posts and not ONE comment about the absolutely fabulous mustache on Rep. Smith? This place is slipping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm no lawyer but isn't that illegal by Mississippi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 http://tpmmuckraker....eignty_bill.php I'm trying to figure out if this is satire or not. It' just seems really out there. What about this do you take issue with, exactly? I'm no lawyer but isn't that illegal by Mississippi? No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm no lawyer but isn't that illegal by Mississippi? No and it might be a clever way to circumvent the feds agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) No, it's not. What? “If the Mississippi State Legislature votes by simple majority to neutralize any federal statute, mandate or executive order on the grounds of its lack of proper constitutionality, then the state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order,” the bill reads. I mean maybe there's an intelligent argument that can be made, if so I would like to hear it. How is this within the framework of American law as has been practiced for centuries to have the Mississippi house interpret the federal constitution and then ignore federal statutes on the basis of their interpretation? Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 What? “If the Mississippi State Legislature votes by simple majority to neutralize any federal statute, mandate or executive order on the grounds of its lack of proper constitutionality, then the state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order,” the bill reads. I mean maybe there's an intelligent argument that can be made, if so I would like to hear it. How is this within the framework of American law as has been practiced for centuries to have the Mississippi house interpret the federal constitution and then ignore federal statutes on the basis of their interpretation? If a law is in derogation of the constitution, or is outside the boundaries of which the federal government has legitimate authority to act, then they are under no obligation to follow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 If a law is in derogation of the constitution, or is outside the boundaries of which the federal government has legitimate authority to act, then they are under no obligation to follow it. They don't need a law to state the obvious though. This law does not state the obvious, it declares that they will decide what federal actions are within the constitution themselves and act accordingly. That's the issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 They don't need a law to state the obvious though. This law does not state the obvious, it declares that they will decide what federal actions are within the constitution themselves and act accordingly. That's the issue... I'd say that if the Fed abrogates its inherent responsibility to act within the framework of the Constitution, then it is left to the states to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'd say that if the Fed abrogates its inherent responsibility to act within the framework of the Constitution, then it is left to the states to do so. Well, SCOTUS would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Well, SCOTUS would disagree. And in a few cases I would disagree with SCOTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 They don't need a law to state the obvious though. This law does not state the obvious, it declares that they will decide what federal actions are within the constitution themselves and act accordingly. That's the issue... no.... that is a symptom, not the issue... The issue is a belief that the Fed is overstepping it's Constitutional authority (the real issue), and the state plans to take appropriate action as afforded by that same Constitution (the cure)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Well, SCOTUS would disagree. Like the head of the NLRB disagees with federal court and says they'll just continue on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 And in a few cases I would disagree with SCOTUS In a few cases SCOTUS disagrees with itself..but this wouldn't be one of them. Mississippi is part of the republic and represented, then can participate as other states do by voting and debating and furthering their point of view and casting their states electoral votes for executive branch candidates etc etc....in the end if they lose the argument/election/debate and something is passed that negatively effects them that they think is not constitutional they can take it to the courts and ultimately as high as SCOTUS where it will be decided one way or the other and then that is the end of it. There is no next step in our Republic where they grant themselves the power to interpret the constitution as they see fit and go rouge picking and choosing federal law they like and dislike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Well, SCOTUS would disagree. The current purview of the SCOTUS is well outside of origional intent, as is. The whole concept of "checks and balances" implies that, in an exact sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Like the head of the NLRB disagees with federal court and says they'll just continue on? lol that's not going to work out if they get another unfavorable ruling en banc and certainly not a SCOTUS order...and either way as per this moment they're done with authority over the Noel issue Edited January 27, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 lol that's not going to work out if they get another unfavorable ruling en banc and certainly not a SCOTUS order...and either way as per this moment they're done with authority over the Noel issue So your, and apparently this adminisration's, legal argument is that the decision only applies to one appointment made under the specific conditions of the law suit, and not all appointments made under the specific conditions of the law suit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts