what do individual state constitutions role play in any federal law?

[mac1911]

This is geared towards gun laws in general but could be used in any area covered by state or federal constitution.

One example, although not a constitutional issue. Is California basically giving the finger to the feds on pot growing? Clearly CA is not going to do much of anything to pot growers but seems they have kept the feds from doing anything also. Can this be implemented to firearms also...?

 

[terraformer]

No role whatsoever. Because there is a federal amendment declaring this is a federal right, and the 14th amendment applies federal rights to the states, there is no application of state gun rights clauses to the federal government. The states can be less or more retarded about gun control but the 2A arguably grants the power to the feds to regulate this area. And if that doesn't, the commerce clause clearly does.

Now, on pot since there is no federal right enumerated the state constitution is actually important there. All the feds can do is deal in commerce clause issues and with a plant grown locally, that's a tough sell. A lot of agriculture rules are or should be susceptible to commerce clause actions when the products are grown and sold locally.

 

[mac1911]

So in a nut shell. Its not the States "job" to enforce federal laws but just not violate the US constitution....
Now can States leagally keep federal law enfoucement out of their state?

 

[Picton]

The states (and the people in them) are subject to both constitutions, and the federal one has supremacy. That gives the feds the right to enforce anything the federal constitution has been interpreted to apply to, no matter what state it's in.

I've often wondered what would happen if a state amended its constitution in a way that was explicitly against what the federal constitution says; I'd imagine it would be up to the US government to sue the state, and the federal courts would hear the case.

 

[swatgig]

The Federal Government cannot require a state to enforce Federal Laws. There was a case (Original Brady Bill?) where the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of each state was to maintain background database. The Court (Supreme?) found this was unconstitutional because the Feds cannot tell the States to enforce or create a law. (My Con Law is WAY downstairs and I don't feel like going to look for it). I heard from a guy in a Pizza shop (undoubtedly a reliable source) that Texas will refuse to enforce the AWB. In short, there is no way the Feds can force the local police to charge someone with a violation. If the Feds get wind of the fact that someone violated the AWB, they can file Federal charges, but the State doesn't have to tell them of the violation.

So, the Feds cannot force California to enforce Federal laws against pot. I doubt they can prevent the Feds from coming to California to enforce them. Pizza Shop Guy says Texas plans to do that with the AWB, but I haven't heard that from anyone else (nor have I gone looking)

 

[Picton]

So, the Feds cannot force California to enforce Federal laws against pot. I doubt they can prevent the Feds from coming to California to enforce them.

This. If a state government tried to bar federal agents from enforcing federal law, and used force to do so, the state would be in rebellion. But if the feds want state officials to help enforce federal law, the state officials can always say no. I think that's perfectly legal.

 

[mac1911]

I'm been watching the other States seems Wyoming has said they will not enforce a federal ban? Also have seen a few that will not enforce any law that is unconstitutional.
This is all crazy....I been reading tie bits of state constitutions and the US CON. Baffles me.