View Full Version : Question about city ordances vs fed law..

07-26-2007, 10:20 PM
I saw today that a Federal Judge struck down Hazleton, Pa's anti illegal alien
ordnances that were passed a while back stating they interfered with the
Supremacy Clause Article VI of the Constitution. Here it is...

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Why can't we use this to fight the anti-firearms legislation that we always
seem to face state wide more commonly now, against city ordnances ?

See this >

Clause 2. Supremacy of the Constitution, Laws and Treaties


Marshall's Interpretation of the National Supremacy Clause

Although the Supreme Court had held, prior to Marshall's appointment to the Bench, that the supremacy clause rendered null and void a state constitutional or statutory provision which was inconsistent with a treaty executed by the Federal Government, 1 it was left for him to develop the full significance of the clause as applied to acts of Congress. By his vigorous opinions in McCulloch v. Maryland 2 and Gibbons v. Ogden, 3 he gave the principle a vitality which survived a century of vacillation under the doctrine of dual federalism. In the former case, he asserted broadly that ''the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.'' 4 From this he concluded that a state tax upon notes issued by a branch of the Bank of the United States was void.

In Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court held that certain statutes of New York granting an exclusive right to use steam navigation on the waters of the State were null and void insofar as they applied to vessels licensed by the United States to engage in coastal trade. Said the Chief Justice: ''In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.''

Could we use this same clause to defend our rights regarding the 2nd
Amendment, as did the ACLU in defending the "rights" of illegal aliens ?
Or is the Bill of Rights excluded from the same category as the Constitution,
it being the Supreme Law of the Land hence waylaying state law and city
ordnance, or is below where we run into a wall..?

Supremacy Clause vs the 10th Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/02.html#9)
Speaking for the majority, Justice Barbour seized the opportunity to proclaim a new doctrine. ''But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.'' 23 Justice Story, in dissent, stated that Marshall had heard the previous argument and reached the conclusion that the New York statute was unconstitutional. 24

The conception of a ''complete, unqualified and exclusive'' police power residing in the States and limiting the powers of the National Government was endorsed by Chief Justice Taney ten years later in the License Cases. 25 In upholding state laws requiring licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages, including those imported from other States or from foreign countries, he set up the Supreme Court as the final arbiter in drawing the line between the mutually exclusive, reciprocally limiting fields of power occupied by the national and state governments. 26

Sorry for such a long and boring question, but I hate to see illegals catch a
break, while lawful firearm owners and enthusiasts are faced with increased
discrimination when it comes to a the 2nd most important Amendment in our
Bill of Rights.

07-26-2007, 11:46 PM
Again, there is no 2nd Amendment in CA Constitution.

07-26-2007, 11:55 PM


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

07-27-2007, 4:20 AM
Because depending on which Circuit Court you look at, the 2nd Amendment to some is a collective right. The 9th Circuit Court misread the Miller ruling, or, probably more accurately, used the wording in the Miller ruling to conclude that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right. So, according to them, they aren't violating your 2nd Amendment rights because the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you as an individual. They say it applies to the state.

Unfortunately, they are wrong. Miller was not about the individual vs collective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but rather, about whether the 2nd Amendment protected the complaintants right to own a short barreled shotgun.

So, until this is decided by the Supreme Court, out here, the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you as an individual. Out here, the 2nd Amendment only applies to citizens collectively, in a militia, which is illegal. :)

Hopefully, SCOTUS will grant cert. and hear this once and for all.

I added this quote from the Business Week story on this:

"The genius of our Constitution," Munley wrote http://coop.pamd.uscourts.gov/06v1586.pdf, "is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws. Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community."

07-27-2007, 4:29 AM
sorry, duplicate post. I haven't had my diet coke yet. :)

07-27-2007, 7:05 AM
I've always asked myself the same question. I thought Federal law could over ride state law, specially if interstate commerce is involved....:confused:

07-27-2007, 7:37 AM
Federal law is only supreme in places where it was clear that the topic was ceded to the Federal government. Immigration is clearly something ceded to the Government. Firearms were assumed to not be ceded to the Federal government - especially because of the Second Amendment. Some of the latter changed with the passage of the 14th amendment.

Note that Federal Congress could chose to occupy ammunition or magazines for example.