View Poll Results: Is state nullification constitutional?

Voters
49. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 38.78%
  • No

    26 53.06%
  • Other/Don't know

    4 8.16%
Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #111
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Naturalization =/= residency laws. that's a fact.



    Nonsense. Residency is completely independent of the naturalization process. Just because the naturalization process is dependent on residency status does not mean that residency is based on the naturalization process. Student visas, work visas, temporary visas... all of these are legal paths to residency that have nothing whatsoever to do with naturalization.

    Also, you seem to be confusing the legal paths to residency with the legal paths to naturalization. Asylum is merely one of many paths to legal permanent residency (a green card).

    A green card is required to go through the process of naturalization, but so is birth. By applying your logical framework that since legal residency is a prerequisite criterion for naturalization, residency is based on naturalization, we can also say that since being born is a prerequisite criterion naturalization, being born is based on the naturalization process. Obviously, such a logical paradigm is incredibly flawed.

    Residency is the independent variable. It can, and always does, occur in the absence of the naturalization process every single day.

    Ergo, Naturalization =/= residency laws regardless of whether you chose to ignore that fact or not.
    It's very simple Tuck. If a person does not respect U.S. borders by skirting naturalization laws they don't have the right to residency, so yes, it is federal purview, one of the few legitimate natural extensions of an enumerated power. If you don't buy the naturalization powers then fine, it also falls under defense, border crossing without permission can be considered anything from a legal violation to act of war dependent upon intent and legal status.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #112
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Actually, among citizens traveling or stationed/working abroad yes they can to a certain degree for citizenship purposes.
    No, they can't regulate birth. Holy ****, dude.

    IOW, that person is either going to be considered a natural born U.S. citizen or possibly under certain circumstances a dual citizen.
    Totally different from regulating birth in every conceivable way.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #113
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It's very simple Tuck. If a person does not respect U.S. borders by skirting naturalization laws they don't have the right to residency, so yes, it is federal purview, one of the few legitimate natural extensions of an enumerated power.
    Ah, so you are using circular logic in order to justify the federal usurpation of residency laws. Gotcha. You realize that it's fallacious to do that, right?

    If you don't buy the naturalization powers then fine, it also falls under defense, border crossing without permission can be considered anything from a legal violation to act of war dependent upon intent and legal status.
    I never said the feds don't have the right to patrol the borders. Once the borders have been crossed, though, it ceases to be a defense issue.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #114
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Ah, so you are using circular logic in order to justify the federal usurpation of residency laws. Gotcha. You realize that it's fallacious to do that, right?



    I never said the feds don't have the right to patrol the borders. Once the borders have been crossed, though, it ceases to be a defense issue.
    Dude, there's nothing circular about it. You are refusing to admit the connection.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #115
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    No, they can't regulate birth. Holy ****, dude.



    Totally different from regulating birth in every conceivable way.
    They can regulate what the birth means within U.S. borders. That is inarguable.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #116
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Dude, there's nothing circular about it.
    Nonsense. You are arguing that it is the fed's power to regulate residency because the only people who have a right to residency are the people whom the Feds grant that power to. that's textbook circular logic.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #117
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    No. A state can challenge the constitutionality of a federal law and seek an injunction in the meantime, but they can not constitutionally act on their own discretion to outlaw the activities of federal employees engaging in federal law enforcement. It is not the roll of the states to determine constitutionality.

    Now, if a state/states feel that the government has become corrupt and that the SCOTUS is not actively seeking to uphold the Constitution but is simply seeking to empower the Federal Government above all else, then they are faced with a situation of deciding if they feel that the social contract that is our founding document has been fundamentally violated and if they wish to attempt to seceed from the Union. At which case, disaster likely follows unless the violation and corruption is to such a truthful degree that a majority of states and peoples in the country agree.

    Attempting to deem things constitutional or not through state laws interfering with federal employees to me seems unconstitutional.

  8. #118
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    They can regulate what the birth means within U.S. borders.
    So they can only affect the way they react to birth. They cannot regulate birth. Ergo, your claim that they can regulate birth to a degree was, of course, a false one. They have no power over the action. They only have power over their reaction to the action.

    This proves that simply because something is a prerequisite criterion for something else, it is not based on that something else.

    Much like how a power to create uniform rules of naturalization do not grant the feds authority to regulate birth, it does not grant the feds authority to regulate residency laws. It requires (nay, required, since it occurred in 1875) an increase in federal authority beyond the enumerated powers for the feds to have that authority.

    Now, it's OK if you want to see expanded federal authority in this regard. That's not immoral or anything like that. It is logically inconsistent, however, if you are doing this while simultaneously claiming to want a decrease in federal authority overall. If you use the same kinds of arguments as your opponents do structurally, you cannot attack the structure of their arguments simply because you disagre ewiththeir concusions. You have already made the prima fascia assumption that the structure is valid by virtue of adopting the identical structure in other arguments.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #119
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Nonsense. You are arguing that it is the fed's power to regulate residency because the only people who have a right to residency are the people whom the Feds grant that power to. that's textbook circular logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So they can only affect the way they react to birth. They cannot regulate birth. Ergo, your claim that they can regulate birth to a degree was, of course, a false one. They have no power over the action. They only have power over their reaction to the action.

    This proves that simply because something is a prerequisite criterion for something else, it is not based on that something else.

    Much like how a power to create uniform rules of naturalization do not grant the feds authority to regulate birth, it does not grant the feds authority to regulate residency laws. It requires (nay, required, since it occurred in 1875) an increase in federal authority beyond the enumerated powers for the feds to have that authority.

    Now, it's OK if you want to see expanded federal authority in this regard. That's not immoral or anything like that. It is logically inconsistent, however, if you are doing this while simultaneously claiming to want a decrease in federal authority overall. If you use the same kinds of arguments as your opponents do structurally, you cannot attack the structure of their arguments simply because you disagre ewiththeir concusions. You have already made the prima fascia assumption that the structure is valid by virtue of adopting the identical structure in other arguments.
    Seems to me you are getting caught up in the semantics, no offense. It's pretty cut and dry. If a non-citizen is born to a non-citizen outside of U.S. borders they must have permission to cross said borders, to remain permanently or semi-permanently they must meet residency requirements. All of this falls within naturalization and border enforcement. The former is constitutional powers according to the fourteenth and the latter falls under defensive responsibilities falling within the enumerated powers.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #120
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No. A state can challenge the constitutionality of a federal law and seek an injunction in the meantime, but they can not constitutionally act on their own discretion to outlaw the activities of federal employees engaging in federal law enforcement. It is not the roll of the states to determine constitutionality.

    Now, if a state/states feel that the government has become corrupt and that the SCOTUS is not actively seeking to uphold the Constitution but is simply seeking to empower the Federal Government above all else, then they are faced with a situation of deciding if they feel that the social contract that is our founding document has been fundamentally violated and if they wish to attempt to seceed from the Union. At which case, disaster likely follows unless the violation and corruption is to such a truthful degree that a majority of states and peoples in the country agree.

    Attempting to deem things constitutional or not through state laws interfering with federal employees to me seems unconstitutional.
    It doesn't follow. States hold powers not enumerated to the federal government, SCOTUS has expanded some powers illigitimately to the federal that they do not own, through interpretations that make no sense unless we understand that they are doing so to bring an agenda, ideology, or desire for more federal power into "compliance" through semantics. In plain english the whole thing is spelled out, and legally the states hold the majority of the power, IMO they could make it a capital offense for federal agents to usurp state authority(extreme yes, but within scope IMO) if they so chose and there is nothing the feds could do about it.................unless they held that enumerated power from the start.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •