Heller decsion, Federalism, and the break up of the Union.

[EMPyre]

Thought this was VERY interesting.  I wonder how big those cajones really are along the northern border and the continental divide?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html


Montana: Wrong Heller Decision Would Violate Its Compact with the United States

Brian Doherty | February 20, 2008, 10:13am

An interesting wrinkle in the gun-rights controversy: Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment (at issue in the forthcoming Supreme Court case Heller v. D.C.) would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S.

Excerpts from the resolution:

    WHEREAS, when the Court determines in 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;

    WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;

    WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract;

    ............
    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:

    1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and.........4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller.

[Ray]

I may need to join em

[MikeWalking]

Sooooo? If the US Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee an Individuals rights, Montana refuses to recognize the Courts authority? Do I have that right? And if I do, what's the best place in Montana to move to for a middle age low budget guy like me?

When I read about Judges on the Supreme Court looking to decisions made in other countries for guidance on Constitutional issues.....mm? now now it's a Family Board Mike..

[Slider]

Wasn't the UNI-Bomber from Montana? Maybe they aren't so CRAZY after all!!!........lol

[EMPyre]

The way that I interpret the resolution is like so:

1) Montana when joining the Federal Union agreed to recognize the Laws and Codes of the United States and did so by ratifying the U.S. Constitution.
2) The US agreed to recognize Montana as a state and grant it authority to conduct business and govern itself accordingly, the US did this by allowing Montana to ratify a state constitution, AND grant the states citizenry protection under the Federal laws and codes.
3) Montana through a stroke of genius, or wonderful accident, clarified the federal version of the second amendment, and in doing so may have also clarified it for the rest of the country since the federal government has ratified Montana's constitution and thereby recognizes the language as legal and just.
4) A decision in Heller, which is a federal case, that effectively allows the federal government to ban firearms possession would in essence be a violation of Montana's state constitution, and a breach of the contract which resulted in the inclusion of Montana to the Union.  The result being that Montana could argue that the Federal government has acted in a manner to void that previous agreement and the folks over that way have several options one of which being dissolution of their charter as a state within the union.

The question is one of Federalism versus state rights.  I believe the US Constitution was originally drafted with the intent to guide the states in reasonably autonomous governance, if that is indeed the case then the state laws trump Federal, except when a state law is specifically deemed to be unconstitutional under Federal Constitution.

I either case, the court has a very difficult decision to make here, and I'm curious how many other states can follow suit with Montana, or how many other locales would like to follow suit with DC?

[sisu]

Sooooo? If the US Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee an Individuals rights, Montana refuses to recognize the Courts authority? Do I have that right? And if I do, what's the best place in Montana to move to for a middle age low budget guy like me?

When I read about Judges on the Supreme Court looking to decisions made in other countries for guidance on Constitutional issues.....mm? now now it's a Family Board Mike..

Poll money together buy up as large a tract of land as a "corporation" could handle. Then restructure land according to moneys invested, making sure all investors have access to and from their home site, maybe central wells so that no one is without water.
I've got a particular group of friends right now looking into this very idea...we laughingly call it the rightwing commune.