Montana Warns U.S. Supreme Court (2nd Amendment)

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Apr 10, 2008.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    On February 22, 2008, the State of Montana warned the U.S. Supreme Court that it must uphold the Second amendment as an individual right in the D.C. vs Heller case. Failure to do so would place Montana in violation of its compact (an agreement to join the union) with the United States. The legislature of the state of Montana reasoned in the resolution that:

    "When the Court determines in D.C. vs Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana".

    Let me explain this a little better. Montana joined the Union in 1889. When they joined they signed something called a compact. It was understood as Montana entered the Union with the Constitution approved by President Harrison in 1889, the right for any person to bear arms, was clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract.

    In February in a bi-partisan movment in the state house and senate, also signed by the govenor the state passed a resolution... The Montana secritary of state sent a letter to the local DC news paper and said that "If the Supreme Court does not uphold the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and that the court rules that it can some how in some way infringe on the second amendment (basically regulate it) that it would put into question the continuing validity of the compact".

    This is basically a half inch away from saying we're out of here... The resolution by Montana is the strongest warning from a state threatening secession to date.


    Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2008

  2. micfranklin

    micfranklin Eviscerator

    I always thought Texas was the only state that could rightfully secede from the U.S.
     
  3. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Any state could succeed if the feds pissed em off enough (see Civil War) There is a reason we are called the United States, not the United Provinces. Each state is its own soverign "nation" held together by a loose federal government. Its why each state has its own government and set of laws, but all work together for providing the common defense and promoting the general welfare of the nation.

    State - A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. These may be nation states or sub-national states.

    Province - A province is a territorial unit, almost always a country subdivision.
     
  4. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    This is just a ploy to get attention. States nearly identical to provinces to be honest now it is virtually just a spelling difference. Provinces have their own jurisdictions and authorities just like a state in the U.S.

    I would hardly call the federal governments hold over the country "lose". The articles of Confederation were lose. They are the ultimate authority when it comes to any issue. Not the state.

    Texas vs White established that no state can secede from the United States since the Constitution does not permit it without other states approval.

    Economically it would just be an incredibly dumb decision.

    Montana is just looking for the spotlight. And not to mention that I am SURE that the U.S. Citizens living in Montana would completely oppose the governors actions...
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2008
  5. EXQEX9

    EXQEX9 Yep.

    A majority of montana citizens would shit their pants and move away if montana succeed. If california did, I know I would.

    Montana cant survive by itself.

    As for its compact, if i were the fed. gov. I would tell them to shove that out dated piece of shit up their asses and stop spittin' game they cant back up.
     
  6. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I think the biggest misconception here is that people have our government structure the wrong way around. The people have all the power vested in them. Then its delegated to the localities, counties, states then the federal government. We are a Republic, therefore the states can tell the feds to shove it up their ass if they are violating anything in the constitution that the federal government and the state in question agreed to at the time of the admission to the union. Each state had an agreement when entering the Union with the federal government. This again is why we are the United STATES and not the United Provinces. Many states have taken this stance on the Real ID act. South Carolina, Vermont and Pennsylvania come to mind as states who have told the feds to stuff the real ID up their butts. The power does not come from the top down. It goes from the bottom up and is protected from the top down to make sure no locality violates the National constitution.

    Montana has every right to do this. The feds saying the 2nd Amendment is a collective right violates the terms of agreement that Montana and the Feds agreed upon when they entered the Union. The terms were the 2nd Amendment was an individual right.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2008
  7. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    Im just wondering if you even read other peoples posts or do you just repeat your first post in your reply.
     
  8. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Yes I do read others posts. I just believe you are misled as to how our Republic works, and why states can succed if they choose to. What you are describing is a Democracy. America is not a Democracy. It would be like renting an apartment. You and the landlord agree to $500 dollars in rent. You sign a contract confirming that. All would be dandy and well until one day you decided to pay only $400 dollars a month. You would be violating the agreement. When the agreement is violated, it is no longer valid. The landlord can evict you or you can leave since there is no longer an agreement.
     
  9. Van

    Van Heavy Weapons Guy V.I.P.

    Swift was right about this, the federal governments hold over the states is not exactly "loose"; remember what happened when those states DID secede (see result of civil war)?

    As I see it, this all comes down to a debate of state's rights. For those of you who didn't pay attention in history class, let me sum it up for you. Our federal government has been taking more power since the day the constitution came into play.
     
    Swiftstrike likes this.
  10. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I understand that... but just becasue they are taking power away does not make it right.
     

Share This Page