Letter: La. act consistent with liberty

In a March 1 letter, “Louisiana gun bill a waste of time,” the author attempts to make the case against The Louisiana Preservation of Individual Gun Rights of Citizens Act, which would declare any “federal law, rule, regulation or executive order” that bans or restricts the ownership of a semiautomatic firearm, magazine or accessory to be unenforceable in Louisiana.

To rail against this attempt to preserve our liberty is to not only misconstrue our history, but also to mischaracterize the clear meaning of the Constitution, as well as to disparage the views of the founding generation on matters of federalism.

The Supremacy Clause, frequently misquoted, does not state that anything the federal government legislates automatically trumps all lower (state) legislation.

This is the typical blather that we hear from those desiring that we all just shut up and take it, however onerous and potentially unconstitutional “it” happens to be.

Article VI states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land.” How any intellectually honest analysis can make the leap from this, to “anything goes” is perplexing. Federal legislation must meet the constitutionality challenge; otherwise it is in no way “supreme.” And the states are clearly capable of recognizing federal overstepping, based on history (see Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798), as well as discussions from state ratifying conventions prior to the adoption of the Constitution.

James Madison clearly understood this when he and Thomas Jefferson penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively, in 1798 to oppose the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration.

These acts violated constitutionally guaranteed rights. By the reasoning of the author of the opinion letter under discussion, this should not have occurred, and the Alien and Sedition Acts should have stood as “supreme.”

A young, post-revolutionary Madison got this right, stating the states were in fact duty-bound to resist the federal government if the latter went beyond its constitutional boundaries. Madison used the term “interposition.” Jefferson coined “nullification” to mean the same practice.

Both the terms and the men are rebuked in today’s government-is-always-right atmosphere. Nullification merely disallowed the enforcement of a nonexistent constitutionality.

Jefferson admonished that eternal vigilance is necessary to secure liberty, and that it is the natural progress of things for liberty to yield and for government to grow. Neither human nature, nor natural rights have changed since our founding. The wisdom of Jefferson, Madison and others should be heeded regarding this matter, and we must, therefore, remain ever vigilant. The act in question does just that, and is fully consistent with our heritage of liberty.

Mike Thibodeaux

physician

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by nimby? - 07/03/2013

they can ignore each other . several years back , before the state did the city of Denver decriminalized smaller amounts of marijuana . the feds chose not to get involved . it's a moot point now . DEA agents can still make busts in Colorado and Oregon , but choose not to . sanctuary cities seem immune to federal immigration laws . they pick and choose where/when to meddle . as much as you'd like the federal government is not going to press law abiding citizens into giving up their legally obtained weapons . suggest you spend some time in the hood , find a 16 y/o with a handgun and ask him where he got it .

2) Comment by DMJ - 07/03/2013

Missing the point, nimby. The point of the original letter to which Thibodeaux is reponding stated that nullification laws are a stupid waste of time...which is true because states can't nullify federal laws.

3) Comment by nimby? - 07/03/2013

will ask again ; why is there reason to make criminals out of those who have done nothing wrong when our judicial system practices catch and release of those committing the crimes ? don't make much sense .

4) Comment by DMJ - 07/03/2013

Or if you don't feel like waiting, go ask a constitutional law professor if states can nullify federal law. Go ahead.... I'll wait.

5) Comment by DMJ - 07/03/2013

Yuck it up, chuckleheads. Thibodeaux's still wrong, and so are you. Time will tell.

6) Comment by Scrooge - 06/03/2013

Stumbling and fallibility are defining human characteristics, no man can accuse another of fallibility without accusing himself as well. That is why amendments were accommodated; the very fact that provisions were made for constitutional amendments clearly indicates that amendments themselves must and simply can not be considered immutable and absolute.

7) Comment by LSUinVail - 06/03/2013

LJ100, take it easy on DMJ already, he often unknowingly stumbles on his own logic and has a hard time focusing on the subject at hand when called out on his circular hypocrisy...quite entertaining tho...hours spent on the keyboard in his parent's basement is taking it's toll. Ha!

8) Comment by nimby? - 06/03/2013

prbeav , sorry to confuse . mine is a concealed carry permit . I don't carry that often , but if I have to make a stop eat/gas up/etc. it is safer with me than to leave it in my truck . many are not aware Louisiana is an open carry state .

9) Comment by prbeav - 06/03/2013

nimby. Thanks for the response, but I do not understand. I am such a poor writer; let me try again. “Registered to carry” does not authorize you to carry a concealed handgun: it authorizes you to display a gun on your hip—like a vigilante. Is that correct? (Sorry; I just have neither encountered nor realized the existence of this practice.)

10) Comment by LJ100 - 06/03/2013

DMJ, DMJ, DMJ. Didn’t you just make fun of Mike Thibodeaux as a “constitutional expert?” Now you are confident that “the proposed gun regulations aren't unconstitutional anyway.” Oh please. After the Heller decision, no one knows exactly what regulations will be allowed under the second amendment. I don’t mind you being opinionated, but don’t criticize some poor writer as a false expert and then start blatantly doing the same thing yourself!

11) Comment by DMJ - 06/03/2013

Why did I ask? Because the National Guard's job is not supposed to be to make local and state governments obey the law, that's why. They're supposed to be used for emergencies - riots, broken levees, hurricanes, etc. State governments that don't like federal law can't just simply ignore it 'cause they don't like it. Besides, to reiterate, the point is moot because the proposed gun regulations aren't unconstitutional anyway.

12) Comment by LJ100 - 06/03/2013

DMJ, if national guard = federal troops, then why did you ask earlier if I wanted Nat Guard enforcing La law? Seems your position changes as you are shown weaknesses in your reasoning. Further, sanctuary cities have been thwarting federal immigration law for years. When a federal administration wants to be tough on immigration, they can get their way in most cities. But often it is not politically attractive (i.e., you want the Hispanic vote for the big upcoming election) and the sanctuary cities can effectively overrule a specific provision of federal law. Bottom line is federal law is only supreme when an administration wants to pay the political price of enforcing that law. So states passing resolutions or laws of questionable enforceability under the supremacy clause do have an effect. Your absolute position that such efforts are a waste of time is clearly an inaccurate overgeneralization.

13) Comment by nimby? - 06/03/2013

prbeav , on question # 1 yes I am , complying with all laws to do such . on question #2 a weapon left in a vehicle is not secure , no matter what . rather than brazenly walk in to tanger mall with a gun on my hip to buy a pair of socks I identify myself , show proper identification so as not to alarm anyone , conduct my business , then leave letting them know I am , just seems right ...

14) Comment by DMJ - 06/03/2013

News flash: National Guard = federal troops, hence the "national" part. Also, 50 states can pass such a law, but it still can't supercede federal law. Remember when 25 states sued the government over the ACA? They all lost and now the ACA is law and, as you put it, "that is the end of the story."

15) Comment by LJ100 - 06/03/2013

DMJ, I think you are still missing the point. You say that “state laws can’t supersede federal laws” and you seem to think that is the end of the story. It’s not. It really boils down to how hard the US president wants to push the issue. If 35 states pass laws saying certain federal gun control laws will not be enforced and the president decides it’s not worth the political firestorm to try and enforce those particular federal provisions, then guess what? State law just effectively superseded federal law. You also ask rhetorically if I want the La Nat Guard enforcing laws in La. The answer is “yes.” I would rather have laws enforced by a local guy who has family here and have connections to La, rather than federal troops who have no connection. The local guy is a lot less likely to be abusive and is likely to be less resented by the local people.

16) Comment by prbeav - 06/03/2013

@scrooge. I agree with you: the purpose of the preamble can correct the amendments.>>>>In fact, Federalist 84, published by signers of the US Constitution asserts that a bill of rights, then being proposed by non-signers debating ratification, is not only not needed but could diminish governance by the governed or the preamble's effectiveness by erroneously specifying rights that are already left to the people.>>>>We are experiencing problematic features of the Bill of Rights again with an outdated Amendment 2, which should be altered from the militia issue to hunting and personal protection or simply deleted as unnecessary in light of governance by the governed, who will hunt and fish and protect themselves in property or personal attack, regardless.>>>>The preamble was written by the founders of the nation, an unauthorized (sent for a different duty), successful assembly. The bill of rights was written by the 1st Congress, which was political and bound to err because it was political. The first group empowered We the People, those who know and are committed to the seven goals stated in the US Constitution's preamble, to correct the errors of politicians and "we, the people," the voting majority when it errs.>>>>I trust and am committed to America because We the People will prevail, as it did in the awful Civil War.>>>>I write opinion because I do not know the objective truth, but about this I am certain: thank you @scrooge.

17) Comment by DMJ - 06/03/2013

LJ100, a couple things. First, California didn't pass such a law. In fact, most Californians at the time were in favor of Japanese internment. Secondly, had they passed such a law (same with the Vietnam scenario), it would not have mattered because state laws can't supercede federal laws, no matter how much we wish they would. You're right about one thing though: this act is pure symbolism. Last time the states tried to ignore federal laws, it took the National Guard coming in to make them follow suit (see: Civil Rights Act). You all really want the National Guard enforcing the laws in Louisiana? I sure don't. But hey, keep it up and that's exactly what'll happen. Lastly, this whole ridiculous premise is based on the idea that the gun control legislation proposed by the President and the Democrats is unconstitutional. It's not. The whole thing is moot....and a waste of time.

18) Comment by prbeav - 06/03/2013

@nimby. "many gun control advocates , are profiling without knowing the individuals situation . I am registered to carry . . . upon entering a business or establishment where I'm not known I make it a point to identify myself to the manager or owner.">>>>I wish you'd elaborate on this practice. 1) I thought "registered to carry" means registered with the police to carry a concealed handgun. Please clarify that point. 2) Then, if you like, elaborate on the reason for revealing the concealed weapon.

19) Comment by jedleland - 06/03/2013

why would a christian have need of a gun? anyone?anyone? Beuller?

20) Comment by Whatnow - 06/03/2013

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

21) Comment by jedleland - 06/03/2013

c'mon guys - put away the fear, put away the guns. it aint no thang!

22) Comment by jedleland - 06/03/2013

"phallic symbol" ? youre not suggesting that this need for grown men to walk around armed even in the absence of any real physical threat is just a manifestation of low self esteem, often brought on by an emascualting condition related to aging and its attendant decline in masculine 'prowess' and increase in general fear of eveything, are you? what on earth would make you write such a thing?

23) Comment by Bighug - 06/03/2013

Hey, postscript, I'll bet my phallic symbol is bigger than your phallic symbol!

24) Comment by LJ100 - 06/03/2013

On DMJ's comments, it's not as if the Federal government is always on the right side of the issue. What if California has passed a law saying the Federal government could not imprison US citizens of Japanese decent after Pearl Harbor? One of the most egregious violations of human rights in US history might have been avoided. What if states had refused to enforce draft laws during the Viet Nam era? How many countless thousands of lives might have been saved. Too bad commentators below are too narrow minded to see the broader implications.

25) Comment by LJ100 - 06/03/2013

Very thoughtful letter on a serious subject. That postscript56 can only make crude phallic symbol comments speaks volumes to his/her intellectual impotence. From the gun owner’s perspective, this legislation can have a real purpose. Even if it is likely to be enjoined by a Federal court, it costs the Feds time and resources to do this. More importantly, if enough states follow suit, it becomes increasingly difficult for the Feds to counter-act this type of legislation. Likewise, if many states enact this legislation, it becomes increasing uncomfortable for federal senators and representatives to push hard on federal gun-control legislation. Even though the act may be mostly symbolism, symbolism can be extremely important in politics.

26) Comment by DMJ - 06/03/2013

Talk about "miscontrue our history." Anyone care to point out what happened last time southern states thought they could override federal law? Time to go back to the 10th grade and take Civics and/or American History again, Dr.

27) Comment by DMJ - 06/03/2013

Mike Thibodeaux: physician/constitutional expert. Yeah, right. Go ahead and pass the law, yahoos. And, once you've done that, try to enforce it and see what happens. If this idiotic law even passes, it will be struck down by the courts. Like writer of the original letter was absolutely correct; this is a stupid waste of time....much like Dr. Thibodeaux's letter.

28) Comment by [e-mail] - 06/03/2013

The US Constitution is clear enough on the rights of individuals and firearms; however, if people stand around, say nothing, accept unconstitutional and onerous regulations, and blindly defend the right of government to dictate how we should live our lives then it will never stop no matter what is in constitution. No dictator, whether benign or evil, ever willingly gives up power and they never stop, they have to be stopped.

29) Comment by nimby? - 06/03/2013

me thinks postscript56 , as well many gun control advocates , are profiling without knowing the individuals situation . I am registered to carry , which I seldom do . if I am in a situation where I am carrying I do not leave the weapon in the vehicle . upon entering a business or establishment where I'm not known I make it a point to identify myself to the manager or owner as to cause no confusion . it has nothing to do with male enhancement .

30) Comment by chem - 06/03/2013

The supremecy clause and so-called nullification laws, such as the one refered to in the letter, are well settled law. The Supreme Court has ruled many times on such things and federal law trumps state law. The letter writer should have included the entire clause: "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". This Louisiana bill is nothing more than right-wing legislators kowtowing to their tea party base. It is a waste of time that will have no force of law.

31) Comment by postscript56 - 06/03/2013

I don't have an issue with gun ownership. I do have a big issue with folks walking around armed for combat. There are only two types of people who support this stupid legislation - those who need the phallic symbol of a big gun in their hands and those whose grip on reality is so tenuous they believe they're living in a combat zone. Which one is Mike Thibodeaux I wonder?

32) Comment by Bighug - 06/03/2013

Sorry, that should have been "derogatory."

33) Comment by Bighug - 06/03/2013

I made derrogatory comments about the Louisiana gun rights act, but not because I'm anti-gun. I strongly support the 2nd Amendment and all the rest of the Constitution. My disagreement was about the futility and waste of time in passing a law similar to ones that have been shot down (no pun intended) in the past by the Supreme Court.

34) Comment by Scrooge - 05/03/2013

prbeav: I believe your ideas on the preeminence of the preamble of the constitution over any amendments is the most faithful to the original intent than any other interpretation.

35) Comment by prbeav - 05/03/2013

"The wisdom of Jefferson, Madison and others should be heeded regarding this matter, and we must, therefore, remain ever vigilant." That's perhaps the weakest argument I have seen in this matter. Thanks to these men's wisdom, America has not resolved slavery. Jefferson neither negotiated nor signed the US Constitution, but its wisdom is in the means of amendment. We need to amend the second amendment to today's reality for clarification's sake: the nation has the monopoly on force, armament must be controlled, states cannot secede, and neither hunting nor private self defense is threatened by armament controls.>>>>I only write my opinion and would like to be corrected on any of the latter four points.