Dear Judge Molloy here is my argument,
In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court invalidated as unconstitutional part of a gun control law (the Brady Act) that required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct federal background checks on the buyers of handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia based his opinion for the Court on a strict view of separation of powers and federalism:[1]
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
Justice Scalia vigorously affirmed basic principles of federalism:
It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of "dual sovereignty." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457, 115 L. Ed. 2d 410, 111 S. Ct. 2395 (1991); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458, 107 L. Ed. 2d 887, 110 S. Ct. 792 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to [*919] the new Federal Government, they retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. 71, 7 Wall. 71, 76, 19 L. Ed. 101 (1869); Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples) the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State's territory, Art. IV, § 3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, § 2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2, which speak of the "Citizens" of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three-fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, § 4, which "presupposes the continued existence of the states and ... those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights," Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415, 82 L. Ed. 1427, 58 S. Ct. 969 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, § 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So how can you forget we have a system of dual sovereignty????
On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on the principle of federalism. In the case Bond v. United States (09-1227), the Court unanimously held that individuals, and not just the states, have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, see New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), at 155–159, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 564 (1995).
You must have forgot this when you made your ruling!!!!!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Re: “Marijuana”
Dear Judge Molloy here is my argument,
In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court invalidated as unconstitutional part of a gun control law (the Brady Act) that required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct federal background checks on the buyers of handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia based his opinion for the Court on a strict view of separation of powers and federalism:[1]
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
Justice Scalia vigorously affirmed basic principles of federalism:
It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of "dual sovereignty." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457, 115 L. Ed. 2d 410, 111 S. Ct. 2395 (1991); Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458, 107 L. Ed. 2d 887, 110 S. Ct. 792 (1990). Although the States surrendered many of their powers to [*919] the new Federal Government, they retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. 71, 7 Wall. 71, 76, 19 L. Ed. 101 (1869); Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 7 Wall. 700, 725, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1869), including (to mention only a few examples) the prohibition on any involuntary reduction or combination of a State's territory, Art. IV, § 3; the Judicial Power Clause, Art. III, § 2, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2, which speak of the "Citizens" of the States; the amendment provision, Article V, which requires the votes of three-fourths of the States to amend the Constitution; and the Guarantee Clause, Art. IV, § 4, which "presupposes the continued existence of the states and ... those means and instrumentalities which are the creation of their sovereign and reserved rights," Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 414-415, 82 L. Ed. 1427, 58 S. Ct. 969 (1938). Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, § 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So how can you forget we have a system of dual sovereignty????
On June 16, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on the principle of federalism. In the case Bond v. United States (09-1227), the Court unanimously held that individuals, and not just the states, have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, see New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), at 155–159, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 564 (1995).
You must have forgot this when you made your ruling!!!!!