Seems to me we’ve been down this road before. An executive order, like a Congressional statute, is federal law, to be challenged in the courts, not contradicted by the states. Our defenders of the Constitution need to read all the way to the end.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
… Yes, valid executive orders are “laws of the United States” under the Supremacy Clause. Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 273 n.5 (1974). Who decides their validity? Ultimately, the Supreme Court, as Truman found out in the Steel Seizure Case.
… Think about it: suppose that a given executive order is unconstitutional because it treads upon the rights of the states. Under Bryant’s proposal, a city or county that wanted to enact such a law couldn’t, because it would then arguably be “enforcing” the executive order. So if Obama wants, oh, a background check at gun shows, and the city of Jackson enacts such an ordinance, what then?
… Update: according to reporter Emily Wagster Pettus, the Gov says that criminals will just get their ammo clips from the Soviet Union. True! Or from Austria-Hungary! Or East Prussia!
(Speaking of Emily and vanished countries, she used to have a National Geographic map of post-Anschluss Germany framed & hanging on her wall, which I sorely coveted.)
This is just sad on its face. When you see the actual recommendations, it looks just plain stupid.
Review safety standards for gun safes? Increase training for school personnel to respond to shootings? Clarify the mental health plans covered by Medicaid?
OOooooohhh…. Fear the creeping tyranny!!
What a bunch of morons.
I’m open to arguments that given orders exceed Obama’s authority. Just not to arguments for state nullification. File a damn lawsuit.
The man is a vulgarian, a moron and a bigot: I’d say “a pig,” but pigs have certain virtues. I have no doubt that in a different day he would have sunk to Bilbo-esque depths of sleaze and moral depravity to grasp and keep what he views as his worldly prestige.
Well, that’s kinda my point. Which orders exceed his authority? Going by this:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obamas-23-planned-executive-actions-on-guns
it’s a completely watered down nothingburger. The only one that I think gets anywhere near questionable is (14), because of the utterly stupid “You shall not research gun violence” bit that Congress has put into place. Somehow I really don’t see that qualifying as something that “infringes our Constitutional right to keep an bear arms as never before in American history”. It certainly isn’t anything that the state of Mississippi has any involvement in.
Don’t misunderstand me – I fully agree that the nullification argument is disgusting. It’s not really surprising, given that we have a lot of people who seem to be itching for the Second Civil War these days. I’m just pointing out the additional stupidity of deploying it for THIS.
Although the mental image of Mississippi rebelling against the insane overreach of the President’s determination to research gun violence has some potential. I picture Civil War reenactors charging the CDC building with bayonets, spearing computer monitors and shooting reams of printed spreadsheets while they lynch a scatterplot. Sort of a cross between North and South, a Mel Brooks movie, and Office Space.
What strikes me is that he has no problem ignoring the Constitution when it comes to things he likes. Be it wrongly or rightly decided, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and establishes a constitutional right. He ignores it with impunity and continues his battle to end all abortion in the state of Mississippi. Selective outrage is in this season, I suppose.
Is selective outrage ever NOT in season, Justin? For both sides, honestly, although I obviously think the right has perfected it.
What we REALLY need to do is declare Adam Lanza a terrorist, and once we do that Obama can do whatever he wants to keep it from happening again. David Addington said so.
For a good read on the last time Mississippi and a large part of the former CSA did this, check out “Unlikely Heroes” by Jack Bass. A good history of the Fifth Circuit’s battle to enforce civil rights, particularly through Tuttle and Wisdom, in spite of southern states’ interposition bullshit. One of the things fascinating to me is that Phil Bryant touts economic development as one of this state’s highest priorities, particularly through the–in my opinion, misconceived–plan of recruiting large employers to Mississippi. How has economic development worked out for other pariah states, like North Korea or Iran, who blast out derisive and ignorant stances in opposition to all mainstream thinking? Numbnuts.
“Economicdevelopment” to Bryant is simply steering tax money to kin and kith.
Bryant does not want enforcement by “state or local law enforcement.”
I mean, c’mon, if he’d said he wanted a law further decriminalizing marijuana under state law you’d be dancing in the streets notwithstanding that it was contrary to federal laws.
(1) I don’t smoke pot, so it’s not a street-dancing issue for me.
(2) Decriminalizing marijuana under state law is not the same as ordering police not to enforce federal law.
I have found myself, twice in the past week, writing a letter to an elected official of this state, in the first instance Steven Palazzo and in the second Phil Bryant, that begins: Are you really so stupid? However, in both cases, I desisted. Instead I’m tempted to begin with a line from a scene in The American President where the President asks a member of Congress that opposes his assault weapons bill, “Does the NRA have a picture of you playing golf with Satan?”
If it becomes “illegal to enforce” any “unconstitutional orders by the President,” does that mean law enforcement officers who do enforce the president’s orders will be arrested? Is Bryant going to tell us which ones are unconstitutional ahead of time, or is that now the job of each county’s sheriff and each city’s police chief? If there is a conflict, does the mayor then decide which one is right? Or is it the board of supervisors?
The most obvious solution, I suppose, is for the House of Lords to declare Mississippi a disaster area and have UN peacekeepers step in and take over our legislature.
The Brits don’t want their colonies back, I’m sure.
I believe it was Buhallin who first mentioned the whole “Red Dawn” aspect to the opposition to gun control. Do not believe for a second that the Gov’s remark about the Soviet Union was unintentional.
From the Onion: “NRA fights legislation that would ban gun sales to those currently on killing sprees.”
If we’re being given back to Europe, everything south of Jackson (roughly) goes to Spain.
I suspect, if asked, the Choctaws would take back their part, which would cover maybe half the state, and they’re already here and have a government set up. Casinos everywhere!
AAARGGG. Get an editing plugin! HERE NOT HEAR
Well, it seems *I* can edit your comment (and did), but I’m not seeing any setting to enable commenters to edit. Possibly that’s only on the $100/year WordPress, which I will start using right after I make $100 from this blog. Only $100 to go!
it’s done with plugins, largely free progams you can add to your site via the control panel. Not too complicated but somewhat. All the bells and whistles on my site are free plugins.
I don’t see anything about plugins on the dashboard … must confess not really knowing my way around WordPress. Googled a way to add the comments editor you use, but again it refers to a “plugins” place that I can’t find.
… Ah, my intuition was correct: not available on WordPress.com. I would have to either use .org (the $100/yr thing) or have my blog hosted on an independent site.
“(2) Decriminalizing marijuana under state law is not the same as ordering police not to enforce federal law.”
Way to miss the point–is not marijuana still not a controlled substance under federal law? Are not states choosing not to enforce federal laws by not arresting people for violating federal law?
No. If pot is decriminalized, local cops have discretion whether to arrest on federal grounds or not. As opposed to a law that expressly forbids them to enforce the federal law.
Simple common sense backs TBA up on this one, I think.
Ever had a cop pull you over for speeding but let you off with a warning? Or passed one while you were going 5 over, and they didn’t come after you?
There’s always a certain amount of discretion when it comes to enforcement at the immediate, lowest level. But that’s a big difference from state laws that actively contradict federal.
Or had a president decide he wasn’t going to enforce immigration laws entirely against people who say they were brought here as children?
I don’t see what’s so different about Bryant saying he doesn’t want to enforce federal laws. How about if it was a federal law requiring state law enforcement to turn over fugitive slaves?
So you don’t think violating the Supremacy Clause is a big idea, and every state can pick and choose what federal laws it will recognize. Okay.
It’s not a supremacy clause issue when state officials refuse to enforce federal laws. It’s a separation of powers issue. Does this sound familiar to you?
(c) The Constitution’s structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of “dual sovereignty.” See, e. g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text. See, e. g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service-and at no cost to itself-the police officers of the 50 States. Pp. 918-922.
It should…
(And yes I know that’s from the syllabus and not the opinion itself).
Anonymous has a point Anderson. There is a difference between refusing to follow federal law and refusing to enforce those federal laws that a state does not believe to be lawful. State employees are not hired hands of the federal government, nor must they do the bidding of the federal government under the supremacy clause. The federal government is more than welcome to send in law enforcement agents to enforce federal laws, but it is not entitled to expect a state to enforce those laws which a state does not believe to be constitutional.
“Separation of powers” refers to the division of federal authority among the three branches of the federal government. It has nothing to do with federal vs. state authority. “Dual sovereignty” is a synonym for “federalism,” which appears to be the structural principle that Anonymous wants to invoke, even though he/she does not know the difference. Gov. Bryant’s suggestion falls under neither category: assuming he chooses his words carefully (a stupid assumption in his case, but one due his office), he wants legislation that renders the executive orders illegal — that is, not just nullifying the force of the orders as law but announcing an antagonistic relationship between state and federal officials as the stated policy of the State of Mississippi. Contrary to CRS’ familiar brand of simplistic, sentimental reasoning, a decision not to enforce a law is itself an exercise of governmental authority as effective as an announcement that the law will be vigorously enforced. (See Gibbons v. Ogden, Marshall, J.) Gov. Bryant’s arrangement would not be an exercise in “dual sovereignty” but “preemptive sovereignty,” a direct contradiction of the Supremacy Clause.
It’s a shame how easily the neo-Confederates cut up and smear the plain meaning Constitution that they supposedly revere — just like another sacred text a lot of them claim to hold dear…
Pike, How do you feel about the states that have legalized pot? Are they obligated to send their state officers out to enforce federal law when in fact it is state policy that pot be allowed for medical purposes?
Anderson,
You mentioned Emily Wagster’s map of Germany. I’m fairly certain you have seen Charles Minard’s infographic of Napoleon’s march into Russia, but if not you need to. I have this framed and it looks cool, but for some reason we’ve never found a spot to hang it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minard.png
Thanks – I just saw that somewhere a couple of weeks ago, and the friend I forwarded it to, printed it off in color for me. Cool, and sobering.
In that vein, I finished the “Touched with Fire” book that I mentioned a few posts back, about infantry combat in the South Pacific 1942-43, and everybody should read that book. One of the best military histories I have read.