[Gedominew]

Some of the provisions that the CA statute involving emissions violates federal law as it curbs production of certain gasses; the feds have already set manditory lmits which cannot be adjusted by the states. Or actually the feds may have set a limit and state's can't exceed it, i'm not sure

As for CA and OR boh cases violate federal law or are isues which are to be decied by the federal governent not state's righs issues; it just isn't the jurisdction of the state.

As for Bush over-riding the rights of state's, if he did then he would have gone into LA after Katrina irrelevant of protest by the Governor.

The point is the citizens of both states voted for the issues, and in Oregons case more than once. It clearly was something that applied to that state alone. In Oregons case the Justice departments attempts were rebuffed by the USSC, but that doesn't change the fat that the Justice Department under Bush still tried to overturn the will of the people of Oregon due to their own moral beliefs, and to maintain faith with the party base. Here is an article on the issue. In fact in Oregon the law it turns out did in fact not violate the CSA which I presume was the law you were refering to.
FOXNews.com - Supreme Court Backs Oregon Assisted Suicide Law - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Now to the California law. Actually your argument with respect to who laws take precendence are not valid here either. While there have been court cases that found some aspects of the way the marijuana was being grown and distributed did in fact violae federal law, and at least one case upholding the employers right to act where an employee fired after testing positive while using the substance under the provisions and restrictions of the California law, the courts apperantly have carefully avoided getting into the basic issue of whether state of federal laws take precedence. There are in fact 11 states that have these types of laws, and if the law were as clear as you seem to think it is I submit none of these state laws would exist. However California seems to be the target case for the administrations efforts to restrict these laws. In 2005 Shwarteneger reinsituted parts of the law again so I suspect we have not heard the end.

I would point out though that in both cases the states are in fact following the wishes of the people as expressed in a direct vote, not one through their legislators. So it does in fact seem to me that the admin is in fact trying to keep a lid on states rights issues when they disagree with them. If is a sutational morality and ethics issue.

As far as Katrina goes, do you really want to get involved in that and the resulting discussion of posse comitatus?

[EjPWyPm4]

I was under the impression you DID have to produce ID to buy a gun from a private store. How else would they verify your age and/or citizenship?

Gun store is different than a private party sale.

Purchasing a firearm from an FFL requires the FFL to submit to federal law. I disagree with this on principle anyway - after all, what business is it of the government's how old you are or your citizenship status? Does "...shall not be infringed." really mean "...will be infringed, restricted, and prohibited at will."?

Purchasing one from your buddy down the street does not require anything but the two of you agreeing on a price.

[EjPWyPm4]

OK I knew that (thought you were referring to private stores, sorry), but in that case, with all due respect, the point you brought up is irrelevant, isn't it?

Not in context no.

[Andoror]

Unlike what the United States is becoming, Montana seems to remain a free state. I’ve known a couple of people move there because of that very reason.
If states can take freedoms of amendments to the point of anarchy like not needing I.D. to vote, I don’t see them having a problem with another amendment literally interpreted within it’s original context intent…