CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Civil War Brewing?

by Cougarfan87 · 1/16/2013

Advertisement
C
Cougarfan87
As I continue to read news articles about events around the country, I get the feeling that the country is coming apart at the seams. The Wyoming legislature is considering a law that is expected to pass that they will arrest/imprison any federal officer attempting to enforce the gun laws being put forth both by Congress and the Executive Orders.



While I personally feel those laws passed by Congress/and President E.O.'s would violate the Constitution, the Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of that discussion. On the other hand, I completely understand the logic and Constitutional basis under the 10th Amendment for Wyoming to say enough is enough. These laws do not concern Interstate commerce, unless it is solely regulating the sale of assault weapons, high capacity magazines etc. across state lines (which it does not), so it is a state's right issue.



I say all of this not to make a Constitutional argument on one side or the other, but just because these arguments remind me so much of the arguments that happened prior to the Civil War. Unfortunately, if the Federal Government does try to take the arms of its citizens by force--not just by laws that are likely to be ignored in Conservative states/counties (see the letter from the Oregon County sherriff saying he will not enforce it or allow it to be enforced in his county http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/16/oregon-sheriff-gun-laws/1838553/), then I see the writing on the wall. A taking by force will undoubtedly be met by force, and all of those kooky right wing militias will have the evidence they need that they were right all along. And all of those liberals will have the proof all along of why guns should be banned. And so begins the war.



I really hope that it never comes to that. I hope cooler minds prevail. But the truth is, to quote an Orson Scott Card book, when the bullets start flying, there is no neutrality. You are on one side or the other.



I'm not trying to be scary. We just need to make it clear to our Congressional representatives that they need to think carefully about these pending issues so as not to exacerbate the situation further. We need to do those things we have been counseled to do to be prepared. We need to trust and follow the counsel of the bretheren and stand in holy places.
G
Guest
I think there is a lot to be legitimately concerned about.



We're setting some very dangerous precedents over the next few days. If a president can overrule an amendment in the Bill of Rights by executive order I can guarantee it wont stop with banning guns.
D
Ddawg
+1. Big time concern. This is a critical time to look at the big picture. Our Federal govt. must remember the purpose of the Constitution, and the Amendments.



After we fought an 8 yr. Revolutionary War to rid ourselves of tyranny, our leaders recognized the need for a foundational, organized law to run our federal govt. In 1787 the Constitution was written.



But, the states and the framers quickly realized, the Constitution did not go far enough in limiting federal govt., and guaranteeing individual freedoms. So, the Bill of Rights, or, the first 10 Amendments were written and adopted.



The framers recognized the importance of guaranteeing individuals certain rights by limiting the power of govt. - or - as history has shown repeatedly - govt. will overreach and trample on the people's freedoms.



Each and every one of these rights is critical to a free people. You cannot eliminate one or more of these rights and still remain a free people. These rights work together, in concert. The Founding Fathers referred to "unalienable rights." These are rights that cannot be transferred, changed or altered without the consent of the person possessing those rights.



It looks like we have a president that is treading in very dangerous waters. He's acting like an "Imperial Ruler." Issuing laws by fiat, through executive order.



We shall see what course this takes, and how Congress responds.
S
SpiffCoug
I don't get why the Left feels we need to give up rights instead of simply not exercise them.
B
BoiseBYU
My two cents: These are troubled times. Fortunately, the prophets have forewarned us. It is important to remember that in addition to the Bill of Rights, designed to limit the federal government, tne Constitution was established because under the Articles of Confederation, the States were too strong and the central government too weak. So we are back to balance again. I'm no expert, but the WY law is not worth the paper it is printed on. A state cannot choose which federal laws it will comply with and which it won't. The federal law is supreme and controls over any state law, assuming it is constitutional, and in the end the final arbiter of constitutionality are not the states but the US Supreme Court.
Advertisement
C
Cougarfan87
BoiseBYU wrote:
My two cents: These are troubled times. Fortunately, the prophets have forewarned us. It is important to remember that in addition to the Bill of Rights, designed to limit the federal government, tne Constitution was established because under the Articles of Confederation, the States were too strong and the central government too weak. So we are back to balance again. I'm no expert, but the WY law is not worth the paper it is printed on. A state cannot choose which federal laws it will comply with and which it won't. The federal law is supreme and controls over any state law, assuming it is constitutional, and in the end the final arbiter of constitutionality are not the states but the US Supreme Court.


I don't disagree with the factual statement that as an operation of law right now, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. However, the question is, what happens in practical terms, Constitutional or not, when a Wyoming sheriff arrests an ATF agent seeking to enforce a federal gun law?



And you know why the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. Because they said so in one of their Supreme Court cases (Marbury v. Madison, I believe--Its been several years since Con Law). One thing the Constitution was silent on was who had the final say on how to interpret it, the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches, or the States themselves. There is reason to argue that perhaps the States should be the final say on what the Constitution means since they all gave up some of their sovereignty by coming together to form the Federal Government, rather than leaving the decision of what the Constitution should mean to five of nine politically appointed individuals. Then there is the question of what if the Congress passes a clearly unconstitutional law--such as confiscating all firearms from the public. Is a person supposed to sit by and sue the Federal government to get a ruling from the Supreme Court? By that time, if it were indeed a tyrannical purpose, it is too late.



Cooler heads could sit down and talk this mess out, but I am not seeing the actions of cooler heads right now...that is what has me concerned that another Civil War may be brewing.
T
tww
BoiseBYU wrote:
My two cents: These are troubled times. Fortunately, the prophets have forewarned us. It is important to remember that in addition to the Bill of Rights, designed to limit the federal government, tne Constitution was established because under the Articles of Confederation, the States were too strong and the central government too weak. So we are back to balance again. I'm no expert, but the WY law is not worth the paper it is printed on. A state cannot choose which federal laws it will comply with and which it won't. The federal law is supreme and controls over any state law, assuming it is constitutional, and in the end the final arbiter of constitutionality are not the states but the US Supreme Court.


I think the current trends and threats by the potus to extend his powers beyond the constitution are strong evidence that we have swung way past balance. (The 17th amendment destroyed any possible balance.)



If there is anything good that will come of the federal power creep underway it will be that the pendulum has reached its peak and will swing back toward balance. But we will see.



I keep hearing people say that the final arbiter is the supreme court but have yet to find it in the constitution.
B
BoiseBYU
tww wrote:
My two cents: These are troubled times. Fortunately, the prophets have forewarned us. It is important to remember that in addition to the Bill of Rights, designed to limit the federal government, tne Constitution was established because under the Articles of Confederation, the States were too strong and the central government too weak. So we are back to balance again. I'm no expert, but the WY law is not worth the paper it is printed on. A state cannot choose which federal laws it will comply with and which it won't. The federal law is supreme and controls over any state law, assuming it is constitutional, and in the end the final arbiter of constitutionality are not the states but the US Supreme Court.


I think the current trends and threats by the potus to extend his powers beyond the constitution are strong evidence that we have swung way past balance. (The 17th amendment destroyed any possible balance.)



If there is anything good that will come of the federal power creep underway it will be that the pendulum has reached its peak and will swing back toward balance. But we will see.



I keep hearing people say that the final arbiter is the supreme court but have yet to find it in the constitution.


The pendulum does need some swinging back...I'm with you on that. As for the Supreme Court being the final arbiter, I do not think it is in the Constitution itself. The Court some 180 years ago interpreted the Constitution as granting them that status and that's the way it has been ever since...



P.S. the federal govt vs. state's right is not as partisan as some might think. Some of the greatest encroachments of state's rights occurred under Republican Administrations, whether it be preempting state's ability to deal with big banks or tobacco or safety....Federalism is a principle disrespected by both Dems and Repubs in DC
D
Ddawg
tww wrote:



If there is anything good that will come of the federal power creep underway it will be that the pendulum has reached its peak and will swing back toward balance. But we will see.




Not to be argumentative ...... I have heard that my whole life - that the pendulum swings one way, then the other. When it comes to govt., that never happens. Govt. keeps getting bigger, passing more laws, creeping into more aspects of our lives, becoming more invasive.



About 3 weeks ago I heard Charles Krauthammer explain it best. To paraphrase Mr. Krauthammer, he said "there is no pendulum, just a govt. ratchet, and the ratchet keeps tightening it's grasp."



Bingo!
N
nuk13
You speak truth Hawk. Any government big enough to restrict someone/something you don't like will sooner or later restrict what you like.



If the Wyoming and Texas laws aren't worth the paper their written on then that is about the end of any balance between states and the federal government.



You also speak truth Ddawg, I don't want to be argumentive either but obama care and this trampling of the 2nd amendment isn't creeping, it's a huge gobbling of our rights.
Advertisement
S
snoscythe
J. Smith foretold civil "wars," not just one.
G
Guest
snoscythe wrote:
J. Smith foretold civil "wars," not just one.

Even the very elect will be deceived.
S
snoscythe
hawkwing wrote:
J. Smith foretold civil "wars," not just one.

Even the very elect will be deceived.


A bit off topic, but here's President Kimball's interpretation for modern usage of that phrase:


And the Savior said that the very elect would be deceived by Lucifer if it were possible. He will use his logic to confuse and his rationalizations to destroy. He will shade meanings, open doors an inch at a time, and lead from purest white through all the shades of gray to the darkest black.
C
cornhole153
Better start building your bomb shelters.
B
BroncoBot
cornhole153 wrote:
Better start building your bomb shelters.

Better go build your utopia. Take guns, force people to live certain ways. Sounds like another plan that was introduced.
Advertisement
D
Ddawg
cornhole153 wrote:
Better start building your bomb shelters.


Why troll? That is a real dumb-ass comment.



I think it's time to have you banned.
M
Mars
snoscythe wrote:
J. Smith foretold civil "wars," not just one.

-U.S. Civil War.

-French Revolution.

-War in Heaven.
B
BoiseBYU
Mars wrote:
J. Smith foretold civil "wars," not just one.

-U.S. Civil War.

-French Revolution.

-War in Heaven.

Oregon State v. Oregon too ;)
T
tww
Our president must be very brave. He wants to limit everyone's magazine capacity to make us all safer. He does this by leading by example right? It will be very hard for the SS to protect him with only seven bullets.
S
snoscythe
tww wrote:
Our president must be very brave. He wants to limit everyone's magazine capacity to make us all safer. He does this by leading by example right? It will be very hard for the SS to protect him with only seven bullets.


But you forget he leads from behind.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.