The Montana Discussion

[Arc Orion]

Or Montana Max.

[ampersand]

Or Joe Montana even. (Should be in the Montana Sports Hall of Fame just for the last name.)

[bagheadinc]

Or Tony Montana.

[Martin Blank]

Congress had to approve the State Constitution for them to be admitted to the Union. If they were to try to somehow overrule the state constitution or remove any portion of that, wouldn't that be the same as removing one of the requirements for admission? Think of it as a breach of contract.

It doesn't matter what was agreed to at the time of admission. The Supreme Court has been explicit about the terms of secession: there are none. It cannot be done under current terms. From Texas v. White:

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

I read "consent of the states" to mean a constitutional amendment, which in today's United States simply would never pass, and "revolution" to be a war that ends with political terms that include independence.

Yes, this does effectively allow Congress to promise the moon to a prospective state and instead deliver Hamburgervietnam, and it's all completely legal.

[BtEO]

This meaning is in-line with what the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller ruled. If you go with the dissent where they claim that it only applies to the militia, then you have you have a contradiction.

I'm drifting into the realm of assumptions here but it seems to me if Montana's Constitution was expected to be consistent with that of the US, then it serves little purpose other than to restate what had already been written. What seems more likely is that checks were made before joining the union to ensure that Montana's constitution was compatible — which would be the case with either interpretation of the 2^nd amendment. To clarify (from the dissenting viewpoint):

The US constitution grants the personal right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of militia duties.
The Montana constitution grants the personal right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of "defence of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned".

The second part of the Montana version reads to me like their version of 'militia', the first part just grants extra rights on a state level. Unless I'm missing something in how the law works over there it is entirely possible for a law to be passed (or in this case a right granted) at a level lower than that of the US constitution as long as it does not go against what is written there. The US Constitution says nothing to the effect that Montana or any other state cannot grant such additional rights to those within state boundaries.

It just seems unlikely (though I'll grant you not impossible) to me that for entry into the Union that candidate states were expected in the own constitutions to merely restate the US constitution. Rather simply that there was an expectation that nothing overrode any clause in the US constitution; imagine if Hawaii had attempted to join the Union with a constitution that granted its citizens the right to keep slaves.

It's there's written documentation from Montana's acceptance that confirms the state's constitution was expected to match and never extend the US constitution then I see the point. But it seems the less likely of the two options to me.

[adciv]

However, federal law trumps state law. As such, if DC v. Heller were decided the other way, then it should be possible for the federal government to outlaw guns for all non-militia purposes, which would go against the Montana State constitution.

[Arc Orion]

However, federal law trumps state law. As such, if DC v. Heller were decided the other way, then it should be possible for the federal government to outlaw guns for all non-militia purposes, which would go against the Montana State constitution.

It being possible doesn't mean that they'd do such a thing. If it had gone the other way, there would be no difference for Montana unless federal law itself was changed.

In such a case, Montana would likely have to change their own constitution to fit.

[Martin Blank]

Federal law does not automatically trump state law. This is a common fallacy. The federal government has no powers whatsoever to adjudicate purely local matters, where 'local' is defined as within the boundaries of a given state. They cannot set local election days or terms. They cannot define homicide or theft, nor prescribe or proscribe punishments. They cannot even set speed limits (not directly, anyway).

BtEO, the way that our law works here is, to my knowledge, unique in that in addition to the federal Constitution, each state has its own constitution. These state constitutions operate within a framework established by the federal constitution in that they are required to provide a republican form of government (that is, one similar in abstract structure to the federal government). These constitutions are not subject to interference by the federal government except insofar as they conflict with the federal Constitution. They are the law of the land in that particular state, and they hold sway over all statutory and regulatory law. This power to run things locally is expressly enumerated in the Tenth Amendment. Each state essentially is, really, a state as most people think of it.

(There is, of course, the power granted to Congress to regulate interstate trade, and this is believed by many to have been badly abused by the Legislative and Executive Branches, and that the Judicial Branch has allowed this to happen for far too long. That's rather another topic of its own, though.)

[collegestudent22]

I would think Montana, along with Idaho and Wyoming, would rather ask to join Canada than declare themselves an independant nation.

Seeing as how Canada is even further left than then the US in terms of policies, and the fact that Wyoming is almost as right wing as Alaska..... Yeah, that wouldn't happen. Maybe make an alliance with Canada so they don't get wiped off the face of the earth, but join them, no.

[Eihger]

Not to mention that Montana wouldn't make that much of an impact to Canada. All the economic venues that Montana has, Canada has, but bigger. So Really they wouldn't have a good reason to take them in.