EMail - Federal Law Does NOT Trump State Law
Dear Mr Motta,
My name is Brian Thompson. I am a resident of Deer Lodge, but not inside the district 43 lines.After reading your campaign pamphlet that you have been handing out all over senate district 43, I have found a factual mistake in it's body.On the back side of the pamphlet under the section labeled "Judicial" you have stated that "Federal law does NOT trump state law".I am writing this to inform you that this is grotesquely incorrect.
The following is from article VI of the U.S. constitution.
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.
As you can see, the constitution states that the supreme law of the land is the U.S. constitution, federal laws, treaties, and finally state laws; in that order.I just thought you should be aware of this in case one of your possible constituents questions you about this statement.
Response:
Brian,
Thank you for your comments on "Federal law does NOT trump state law". Unfortunately, the Constitution is being redefined by the courts and administrative agencies to nationalize the interpretation of law. The redefinition totally obscures the line of jurisdiction which reserves to the states those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. Initially, the interstate commerce clause was used as the basis for the courts' holding the "federal law trumps state law". That intrusion has been extended to practically every aspect of law and, consequently, the perception that the federal government is supreme. The revenue sharing act of 1986 assigned a dollar figure to compliance with federal law. Under the assumption that the federal government was a more effective tax collector, the states agreed to allow expansion of federal power with the expectations that the states would receive federal funding for programs they wished to initiate. What they failed to give significant weight to were the compliance rules, regulations and guidelines which were mandatory in order to receive revenue sharing funds. In effect, states rights have been destroyed by the greed of both levels of government. The supremacy of the federal government has been extended into all levels of state and local government through the issuance of grants and earmarks. There is hardly any level of government or nongovernment organizations seeking to fund a given program, that doesn't immediately ask the question, "Where can we get a grant?". The environment, drugs, ID's, guns and nearly every aspect of our lives is now presumed to be within federal jurisdiction. The secularization of morality, which was once the purview of churches, has been surrendered to a non-profit tax classification. The government now dictates which vices are crimes and the penalties for not complying with their version of morality.
The courts have no authority to revise or redefine the Constitution. The method of changing the Constitution is to amend it. By issuing their opinions and asserting that their political or social view is infallible and henceforth, the rule of the land, they violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Montana's Constitution was amended by initiative to specify term limits for elected officials. In a case concerning an Arkansas amendment the Supreme Court held that additional qualifications for federal elected officials could not be expanded by the states. The federal Constitution specifies citizenship, residence and age as qualification for federal office and defines the limit of federal jurisdiction. States should only have to comply with those provisions and the state legislatures are authorized to add additional qualifications. If the states do not have the authority to add additional qualifications, then laws pertaining to parties, campaign contributions, filing fees and other election laws should also be declared unconstitutional consistent with the federal Supreme Court's interpretation.The Montana Secretary of State presumed that the decision applied to federally elected officials and has not enforced the Montana constitutional provision concerning term limits. He has chosen to selectively exclude federal representatives from the term limits provision without seeking repeal or amendment of the Montana Constitution. The SOS takes an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions. Rather than complying with the will of the people of Montana, the SOS is selectively enforcing the opinion of five judges in Washington. This selective enforcement is in contravention of Montanan's public trust, a violation of his public duty and a breech of his oath of office. Extending their argument for federal control, you have to ask why we need state constitutions, statutes, legislators, administrators and/or courts.
If states continue to allow the imposition of federal control and the perception that "federal law trumps state law", we have destroyed the principles of the Federal Constitution which defines the limits of federal jurisdiction and specifically reserves to the states' those rights not delegated to the federal government. We are redefining and enforcing the Constitution to a communitarian rule of law which subjects individual rights to the majority rule of the community. The federal government and courts are persistently accumulating power by holding that the federal and states' Constitutions are unconstitutional. I believe that we have to defend the Constitution, limited government, states' and individual rights. Therefore, "Federal Law does NOT Trump State Law".
Thanks again.
Dick Motta
Monday, August 18, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Residency Complaint-Dennison
Residency complaint goes before top official - Motta: Laslovich not part of district
By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau
HELENA - The state’s top political enforcer said Tuesday he’ll look into a complaint alleging state Sen. Jesse Laslovich, D-Anaconda, is not a legal resident of his own district.
But Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth said accepting the revised complaint doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll resolve the question of Laslovich’s residence.
And the man who filed the complaint - Republican candidate Dick Motta of Philipsburg - said he’s not confident that Unsworth will rule on the issue.
“I think he’s going to dance around this thing and basically just tell me to take it to court,” Motta said Tuesday. “I think he’s going to try to get out of it, just because it’s a political football and (state officials) don’t want to deal with it.”
As for Laslovich, he said he’ll cooperate with any investigation, which he believes would show that he’s a legal resident of Senate District 43 and entitled to run for re-election this year.
“(Motta) can say that he doesn’t think I’m a resident of the district all he wants,” Laslovich said. “The law says that I am, period. I just think (his complaint) is a desperate act, and will continue to be met with the results that he’s not happy with.”
Laslovich, 27, is running for re-election in heavily Democratic SD43, which includes Anaconda, Deer Lodge, Philipsburg and Drummond. When he filed to run for re-election, he listed his parents’ address in Anaconda, although he and his wife, Jill, currently live and work in Helena.
Laslovich has said his job as an assistant attorney general in Helena is temporary and that he has always intended to return to Anaconda, where he grew up and which he considers home. His wife is an attorney with a private law firm in Helena.
Laslovich is registered to vote in Anaconda. State law says someone doesn’t lose their residency if they “go into another district of this state for temporary purposes with the intention of returning.”
Motta filed a complaint with Unsworth in early July, asking the commissioner to rule that Laslovich is not a resident of SD43 and therefore required to withdraw.
Unsworth rejected the complaint July 18, saying it didn’t cite a law under his jurisdiction. Motta refiled a new complaint last week, and Unsworth said Tuesday it meets all requirements for a legitimate complaint.
Laslovich now has until Aug. 15 to respond. Unsworth said after reviewing that response, he could dismiss the complaint and decline further investigation.
Unsworth indicated that Motta may have a difficult time showing that Laslovich violated the applicable law, which says a violation is only when someone “knowingly” makes a false statement on candidate filing material.
“There is a heavy emphasis on intent,” Unsworth said.
And even if Unsworth rules that Laslovich falsely stated his residency, Unsworth said he doesn’t have the power to remove Laslovich from the November ballot. A judge would have to take that action, at the request of someone else.
Copyright © 2008 Missoulian
By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau
HELENA - The state’s top political enforcer said Tuesday he’ll look into a complaint alleging state Sen. Jesse Laslovich, D-Anaconda, is not a legal resident of his own district.
But Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth said accepting the revised complaint doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll resolve the question of Laslovich’s residence.
And the man who filed the complaint - Republican candidate Dick Motta of Philipsburg - said he’s not confident that Unsworth will rule on the issue.
“I think he’s going to dance around this thing and basically just tell me to take it to court,” Motta said Tuesday. “I think he’s going to try to get out of it, just because it’s a political football and (state officials) don’t want to deal with it.”
As for Laslovich, he said he’ll cooperate with any investigation, which he believes would show that he’s a legal resident of Senate District 43 and entitled to run for re-election this year.
“(Motta) can say that he doesn’t think I’m a resident of the district all he wants,” Laslovich said. “The law says that I am, period. I just think (his complaint) is a desperate act, and will continue to be met with the results that he’s not happy with.”
Laslovich, 27, is running for re-election in heavily Democratic SD43, which includes Anaconda, Deer Lodge, Philipsburg and Drummond. When he filed to run for re-election, he listed his parents’ address in Anaconda, although he and his wife, Jill, currently live and work in Helena.
Laslovich has said his job as an assistant attorney general in Helena is temporary and that he has always intended to return to Anaconda, where he grew up and which he considers home. His wife is an attorney with a private law firm in Helena.
Laslovich is registered to vote in Anaconda. State law says someone doesn’t lose their residency if they “go into another district of this state for temporary purposes with the intention of returning.”
Motta filed a complaint with Unsworth in early July, asking the commissioner to rule that Laslovich is not a resident of SD43 and therefore required to withdraw.
Unsworth rejected the complaint July 18, saying it didn’t cite a law under his jurisdiction. Motta refiled a new complaint last week, and Unsworth said Tuesday it meets all requirements for a legitimate complaint.
Laslovich now has until Aug. 15 to respond. Unsworth said after reviewing that response, he could dismiss the complaint and decline further investigation.
Unsworth indicated that Motta may have a difficult time showing that Laslovich violated the applicable law, which says a violation is only when someone “knowingly” makes a false statement on candidate filing material.
“There is a heavy emphasis on intent,” Unsworth said.
And even if Unsworth rules that Laslovich falsely stated his residency, Unsworth said he doesn’t have the power to remove Laslovich from the November ballot. A judge would have to take that action, at the request of someone else.
Copyright © 2008 Missoulian
August Interim Report
The August issue of Montana legislative branch newsletter is available at The Interim. If you have questions or comments about the newsletter, contact Jeff Martin at jmartin@mt.gov or (406) 444-3595.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)