MD: 21 State Attorneys General Ask Supreme Court to Void Maryland Gun Law

[jamil]

Right, at the behest of its citizens.

That’s preferable, but it should be and is a condition to be in the union.

 

[T.Lex]

There's an interesting "full faith and credit" issue here, comparable to that of one state's (constitutional) obligation to recognize certain kinds of marriage.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That’s preferable, but it should be and is a condition to be in the union.

Ex post facto aside, this would only make sense if states weren't compelled to remain in the Union, under force of arms.

 

[T.Lex]

[wrong thread]

 

[drillsgt]

Right, at the behest of its citizens.

It's been at the behest of the citizens such that a majority of counties are now opting to be 2nd amendment sanctuaries and are opposed to these proposed laws but the .gov is barreling ahead anyway. At his point you can't say just address it at the ballot box because by the time that comes around the laws will long be passed and once that happens are almost never undone. The democrats suffered after the passing of the AWB but the ban still stood so it did little good after the fact.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's been at the behest of the citizens such that a majority of counties are now opting to be 2nd amendment sanctuaries and are opposed to these proposed laws but the .gov is barreling ahead anyway. At his point you can't say just address it at the ballot box because by the time that comes around the laws will long be passed and once that happens are almost never undone. The democrats suffered after the passing of the AWB but the ban still stood so it did little good after the fact.

If I may, I'd like to test your and others consistency
From Indiana Code -
IC 35-45-1-4 Flag desecration[FONT=&quot] Sec. 4. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally mutilates, defaces, burns, or tramples any United States flag, standard, or ensign commits flag desecration, a Class A misdemeanor.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] (b) This section does not apply to a person who disposes of a flag in accordance with 4 U.S.C. 8(k).

From my understanding this is still on the books. Would you find it acceptable if Illinois, California, New York, Washington appealed to the Supreme Court to have that law struck down, even though no local (within the state) challenge has been made? I don't. [/FONT]

 

[jamil]

If I may, I'd like to test your and others consistency
From Indiana Code -
IC 35-45-1-4 Flag desecration[FONT=&amp] Sec. 4. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally mutilates, defaces, burns, or tramples any United States flag, standard, or ensign commits flag desecration, a Class A misdemeanor.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] (b) This section does not apply to a person who disposes of a flag in accordance with 4 U.S.C. 8(k).

From my understanding this is still on the books. Would you find it acceptable if Illinois, California, New York, Washington appealed to the Supreme Court to have that law struck down, even though no local (within the state) challenge has been made? I don't. [/FONT]

Hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled that “free speech”? Maybe find a different purity test.

 

[jamil]

Ex post facto aside, this would only make sense if states weren't compelled to remain in the Union, under force of arms.

If states want to leave I don’t think there should be violence, but there should naturally be a cost.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hasn’t SCOTUS already ruled that “free speech”? Maybe find a different purity test.

The law seems to still be on the books. And given that time, place, and manner are able to dictate restrictions, and noting code indicates "manner" with 4 U.S.C 8(k), the question is valid.

 

[jamil]

The law seems to still be on the books. And given that time, place, and manner are able to dictate restrictions, and noting code indicates "manner" with 4 U.S.C 8(k), the question is valid.

I would think that if someone were prosecuted under the statute, they could claim it’s unconstitutional. And if it is, it is.

 

[SSGSAD]

Nope. Even though, I agree with the sentiment, I think it's bad practice for for states to dictate what goes on in other states. Maryland, should not be compelled to genuflect to anyone but the voters in the state.

I concur .....Sir .....

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

. I used to disagree with Incorporation. I’ve evolved to believing that Incorporation is correct and necessary for a free nation. A state should have the right to set its own policies and laws but within some boundaries that require a free state. If Maryland is so opposed to the idea of citizens free to protect themselves, they should succeed and go it alone.

And failing that, maybe they should just secede.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And failing that, maybe they should just secede.

 

[Twangbanger]

The issue in this thread needs to be defined more clearly.

Should parties be able to file briefs in a case, when they have no (direct) interest in it?

I believe this point is already long and well-settled. Somebody inserted the term "petition," but I think you need to get your terms straight.

Anybody can file a brief about anything. "Thank you for your opinion." And the court is free to ignore it. So meh, there is no issue here.

 

[jamil]

And failing that, maybe they should just secede.

***damn iphone.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

***damn iphone.

If at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' till you do suck seed. - Curly Howard

 

[Ingomike]

Nope. Even though, I agree with the sentiment, I think it's bad practice for for states to dictate what goes on in other states. Maryland, should not be compelled to genuflect to anyone but the voters in the state.

Never. If there is a state law that needs to be changed, it should be the residents of that state to leading the way, not some AG, in another state, 500 miles away. If people don't like outside the state don't like it, don't go to that state. My issue is jurisdiction. Even if a state law violates the Constitution, I don't believe that other states should be able to challenge it.

Right, at the behest of its citizens.

If I read the case right it is at the behest of its citizens. I doubt that you and I would be granted standing nor would any of the AG's filing briefs. It is the right of every American to express their opinion to a federal court. I believe that anyone has the right to express an opinion to any court.

I disagree with incorporation. Sure, those rights should be protected, but by the States rather than the Federal Government. I would be an anti-Federalist, as I don’t believe that our national government should be as strong as it is.

On this we agree, although the horse left the barn so long ago the evidence it was there is even gone...

 

[jamil]

I disagree with incorporation. Sure, those rights should be protected, but by the States rather than the Federal Government. I would be an anti-Federalist, as I don’t believe that our national government should be as strong as it is.

Should a state be allowed to enslave people?

 

[Twangbanger]

Should a state be allowed to enslave people?

More to the point of this thread, should a state be allowed to dictate that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states? Well, question is unfairly posed, because we know only Federal Judges can do that. But we can see by this example that yes, states should absolutely be able to hold opinions and file briefs in Federal cases involving another state's laws, because we have seen time and again how the resulting Federal judicial decisions can be (and usually are) binding on states other than where the case originated.

Whether it's California environmental laws, Alabama abortion laws, the Indiana Defense of Marriage statute, you name it, this is how the game is played. The activists and lawyers involved in those laws and resulting cases know precisely what they're doing. They're trying to influence the rest of the country by passing state laws they hope will be challenged. Passing the law in the first place is just the equivalent of "shooting the puck into the red zone." You're relying on someone else to score the actual goal later.

I don't think any of us (except possibly attorneys) likes this state of affairs, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it was. We're arguing things in this thread that have been settled Constitutionally for hundreds of years.

 

[jamil]

More to the point of this thread, should a state be allowed to dictate that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states? Well, question is unfairly posed, because we know only Federal Judges can do that. But we can see by this example that yes, states should absolutely be able to hold opinions and file briefs in Federal cases involving another state's laws, because we have seen time and again how the resulting Federal judicial decisions can be (and usually are) binding on states other than where the case originated.

Whether it's California environmental laws, Alabama abortion laws, the Indiana Defense of Marriage statute, you name it, this is how the game is played. The activists and lawyers involved in those laws and resulting cases know precisely what they're doing. They're trying to influence the rest of the country by passing state laws they hope will be challenged. Passing the law in the first place is just the equivalent of "shooting the puck into the red zone." You're relying on someone else to score the actual goal later.

I don't think any of us (except possibly attorneys) likes this state of affairs, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it was. We're arguing things in this thread that have been settled Constitutionally for hundreds of years.

That’s true. However my question was about determining ideological consistency. How far does one take their Federalism?