Constitutional Law -- :)

[Citruscide]

State A has a law enacted prohibiting the killing of the endangered spcies "Do-Do Bird"-- making any violation of the killing of the bird punishable by a fine of up to $5000 dollars. Within State A's boarders, is YoSamity National Park... it is enclosed entirely within State A's boundries, and is all federal land.

The Federal Rangers within YoSamity have come to the conclusion that the overflow of Do-Do Birds is causing many other species to die because of the overflow of "do-do" (hence the name). The federal rangers have a one-day Do-Do bird hunt, which the rangers will go out and kill as many Do-Do's as they can, within the National Parks boarders.

The state askes the Rangers to wait 48 hours, but they say no. The state seeks an injunction in federal court to stop the rangers... State A will be:

A. Successful, because State A asked the Rangers to wait 48 hours, a reasonable time.

B. Successful, because the state staute forbidding killing of the Do-Do bird is sufficient to prohibit the killing of the bird within the lands of the state boarders.

C. Unsuccessful, because the federal government has full power when it comes to fedeal actions on federal lands.

D. Unsuccessful, because the federal authority is held to be a higher power than that of state law.

C-ditty

 

[danielson]

hmm....not sure how state and federal law works

but

provided C and D are not true it would come down to whether it can be proved that all the other animals would die if the bird are not culled within 48 hrs, they wold place a 48hr wait on the rangers

i also suspect that while in environmental cases it seems more prudent to listen to state rather than federal powers, the federal powers will get priority

 

[manny78]

Will someone tell me why the hell the US doesnt have only one criminal code instead of different laws from one state to another one ? I know I'm off-topic but I'd like to know.

 

[Rockafella Skank]

C.

 

[Citruscide]

C is the correct answer...

The federal government has unlimited powers as what to do with federal lands... they do not have to comply with state laws or statutes in this regard.

C

 

[Citruscide]

Will someone tell me why the hell the US doesnt have only one criminal code instead of different laws from one state to another one ? I know I'm off-topic but I'd like to know.

You mean... Common Law... Model Penal Code... different standards for Insanity...??

Diverse states, different communites feel differently on different subjects... it is annoying to me as well... trying to keep track of all the different laws and applications... believe me!

C

 

[spentagn]

Now do it with an example of the state trumping the federal gov due to Federalism. I like those better

 

[Citruscide]

Now do it with an example of the state trumping the federal gov due to Federalism. I like those better

Federalism?? I think that went out with the Articles of Confederation and Alexander Hamalton?

C

 

[spentagn]

*spitting at C*

 

[Citruscide]

*spitting at C*

C

 

[manny78]

You mean... Common Law... Model Penal Code... different standards for Insanity...??

Diverse states, different communites feel differently on different subjects... it is annoying to me as well... trying to keep track of all the different laws and applications... believe me!

C

exactly why not have one Criminal Code for your country. Fuck the common law. Too much trouble IMO.

 

[MrDbol]

Some homeless guy in Russia ate a rare $10,000 bird he stole from a Russian zoo, because he was hungry! lol

 

[cockdezl]

exactly why not have one Criminal Code for your country. Fuck the common law. Too much trouble IMO.

Because we are based on a State's Contract theory.

The US was a union of State's which agreed upon maintaining State's rights, which are an extension of individual rights, over the concept of an all-powerful central government.

The idea of maintaining State's rights was to ensure local control of your representatives and elected officials. The Republicans (not the pathetic present day Republicans) fought to ensure State's rights to allow for the individuals of each state to make laws that apply to their own situations, not that of a central government throwing out edicts that many did not agree with.

Since no one agrees with every law created, this allows for one state to grant marriage priviledges to homosexual couples and another to allow carrying firearms in public and yet another to not have a state income tax. The local civilians are allowed to decide what they agree on and what they do not.

 

[KHMER ROGUE]

Guys, anybody forgot about Civil War? (Spare me the Slavery debate for this one, okay?) Basically, it was States' rights vs. Federalism. So, spoils goes to the victor and guess what? Federalism prevails in this country. No such thing as States' rights anymore here.

"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

Pffffht! So, my point is, anything that Federal Government wants, they get it regardless of state court and their laws.

 

[Prometheus]

Pffffht! So, my point is, anything that Federal Government wants, they get it regardless of state court and their laws.

aside from the occasional legal battle interesting only to academics and judges, this is true.

the method I like the best is when the Fed threatens to withhold funding if the state does not comply with laws the Fed has no power to enforce (eg, driving speed limits, university funding) - first the Fed taxes the citizens of a state, then says it will withhold the benefit of that taxation from the taxed if they don't play along -- the Fed is basically saying "hey look, you don't HAVE to follow our rules, but we will steal your money and spend it in other parts of the country if you don't..."

 

[Prometheus]

Guys, anybody forgot about Civil War? (Spare me the Slavery debate for this one, okay?) Basically, it was States' rights vs. Federalism.

Mainstream media has really twisted the history of the Civil War around, to where it seems most believe the main motive for the fighting was the slavery issue. People seem to forget than Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation wasn't made until 2 years after the war began, and that it only applied to slaves in the enemy states, not to those in the neutral states that had not joined the Confederacy.

 

[cockdezl]

Mainstream media has really twisted the history of the Civil War around, to where it seems most believe the main motive for the fighting was the slavery issue. People seem to forget than Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation wasn't made until 2 years after the war began, and that it only applied to slaves in the enemy states, not to those in the neutral states that had not joined the Confederacy.

"The Real Lincoln" by DiLorenzo is an excellent book on Lincoln's admininstration. It is easily argued that Lincoln's administration cemented the concept of federal omnipotence over the idea of state's rights.

 

[manny78]

If I could only remember the tittle but I once saw in a book that Abraham Lincoln's first idea was to send all the black back to Liberia. Civil war was between two different economies. That's it.