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 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #131
    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
    I'm not being emotional at all. I'm being blunt. You've **** on the principles you profess to uphold based on your reverse engineered logic designed to achieve the desired conclusion (that immigration is a federal power).

    You've employed identical logic to the "gun grabbers" by reinterpreting words, redefining terms, and claiming that things which are not enumerated powers are enumerated powers in order to justify the increase federal authority in an illegitimate manner. Once you do that, you lose all credibility in such debates, IMO.
    I'm being very consistent. The only time the federal has powers are when specifically given them by the constitution, with one exception, necessary and proper. Necessary and proper follows that if something is of compelling interest and properly found to be within a power then the govenrment requires no amendment.

    In a case where the commerce clause(commerce between the states specifically, not interstate implications as expanded) is abused, yes, it fails a necessary and proper test because there is no initial power to the fed to uphold, regardless of court rulings it's patently obvious. In the case of immigration, crossing borders, it's necessary to insure that those coming into the country are doing so at a reasonable pace so that resources aren't exhausted, and it's also necessary to make sure those crossing borders are doing so for benign purposes. The "proper" test is upheld because of two powers 1) Naturalization, as it follows that controlling immigration and non-citizen residency is crucial to the process it also passes the defensive powers test in that borders are the very definintion of defense.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #132
    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
    The only time the federal has powers are when specifically given them by the constitution
    You've just argued the exact opposite with regard to residency and immigration, though.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #133
    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
    You've just argued the exact opposite with regard to residency and immigration, though.
    All you are saying is that the two aren't compatible. I'm explaining that the only way to enforce naturalization of non-citizens is to have control of the immigration process, and that because of necessary and proper it stands to reason that they do have the need for immigration powers and because properly they have naturalization powers due to the fourteenth both tests are passed. The federal isn't saying immigrants MUST remain in the same residence, just that until they have completed naturalization they MUST be on record with the INS, IOW, they have immigration powers through their naturalization powers, not "residency" but they do have immigration policy power.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #134
    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
    All you are saying is that the two aren't compatible.
    No, I'm saying that the two aren't interdependent. That's what disproves your necessary and proper argument.

    I'm explaining that the only way to enforce naturalization of non-citizens is to have control of the immigration process
    And that is demonstrably false as naturalization was enforced, without any problems, for nearly 100 years without federal control over the immigration process.

    You can claim whatever you like. That's easy. The problem is that your claims are not supported by any facts.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #135
    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, I'm saying that the two aren't interdependent. That's what disproves your necessary and proper argument.
    By necessity they are. You can't naturalize someone who doesn't 1) Immigrate 2) identify themselves 3) Register in the system 4) attends the classes, satisfies all requirements, and is capable of being contacted. What good is the naturalization process if immigration isn't controlled?



    And that is demonstrably false as naturalization was enforced, without any problems, for nearly 100 years without federal control over the immigration process.
    There has always been a naturalization process, and it has constistently been dependent upon having a certain set of standards. The big problem came when a certain country went to **** and the people started violating border sovereignity. When people were coming in across the ocean it was pretty controllable, when people literally walk across the border it's not as easy. And, this isn't a rant against a people to be clear, it's against crossing borders illegally, a criminal action.

    You can claim whatever you like. That's easy. The problem is that your claims are not supported by any facts.
    Necessary and Proper is a fact, legal immigration and naturalization are interdependent, not legally entering the naturalization process is a crime, residency is not a federal purview, but illegal immigration is, I don't know which of these can be "opinion".
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #136
    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
    By necessity they are. You can't naturalize someone who doesn't 1) Immigrate 2) identify themselves 3) Register in the system 4) attends the classes, satisfies all requirements, and is capable of being contacted.
    False. Just because one is dependent on the other doesn't mean they are interdependent.

    What good is the naturalization process if immigration isn't controlled?
    It is just as good as it is if immigration is controlled. They are totally different things. Where'd you get the idea that it was?

    There has always been a naturalization process
    And it has always required immigration, but only after 1875 did it suddenly, magically, through the power of unicorn farts (presumably), become "necessary" for the feds to control immigration in order to effectively carry out their naturalization duties despite having done so without any problems for nearly 100 years.

    Necessary and Proper is a fact, legal immigration and naturalization are interdependent, not legally entering the naturalization process is a crime, residency is not a federal purview, but illegal immigration is, I don't know which of these can be "opinion".
    Again, just because you can pretend it's true doesn't make it true.

    In order for something to pass the necessary and proper test, one must look at the word necessary, understand what it means, understand what it cannot possibly mean, and then go from there.

    In order for something to be necessary, it must be required. If it is not required, it cannot possibly be necessary.

    The thing being tested is whether federal control over immigration (non-enumerated power) is necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization (enumerated power). We can look at the evidence here, and it's clear.

    For almost 100 years, a uniform code of naturalization existed in the absence of federal control over immigration.

    What does that tell us?

    The obvious answer is that federal control over immigration is NOT necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization. Thus it fails the necessary and proper test.

    Ergo, your claim that it is necessary must, logically, be a false claim unsupported by logic or reason in any way shape or form.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #137
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    Nullification efforts are mounting in states across the country. Kansas recently made it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal gun laws on guns made in Kansas. A law here in Missouri recently passed with huge super-majorities, so it will come into effect regardless of whether Governor Nixon vetoes it. So my question is whether or not those laws are constitutional.

    I'd like to make a distinction between those laws and the marijuana laws that have come into effect and are mentioned in the source as examples of nullification. Those laws merely legalize marijuana in the state, but do not prevent federal agents from enforcing the federal laws against it. As I understand it, this type of law was ruled constitutional in Prigg v Pennsylvania where it was said that the states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Rather, what I am talking about are laws that prevent even federal agents from enforcing the federal laws.
    I have no idea what SCOTUS would rule on it however it is generally understood that the federal government cannot legally make laws on something which the Constitution does not give it power to do so. So in that respect the States can nullify such a law. However if the goverment makes a law under one of its powers then no, the state cannot nullify them from enforcing such a law, they can only refuse to help do so. This is actually how the Federal government was able to ban full automatic guns, by using one of their constitutional powers to ban em. Namely the sale of them using the Commerce clause. Which honestly has been abused on this issue as well as they are extending it to intrastate sales as well as interstate sales on the basis that the gun might be sold to someone which does not reside in that state.

    What many don't know about the commerce clause is that it was never intended to be used against individuals, only states. It was written with the intent of regulating state commerce. Its purpose was to stop states from creating excessive taxes on goods imported from another state while giving a bonus to selling goods from their state into another state. Unfortenately greedy politicians and CEO's has corrupted it to what it is now a days.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #138
    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
    False. Just because one is dependent on the other doesn't mean they are interdependent.
    To an extent you are correct. Immigration is simply the act of crossing national borders. However legal immigration and residency are dependent upon the naturalization process.



    It is just as good as it is if immigration is controlled. They are totally different things. Where'd you get the idea that it was?
    How so Tuck? Seriously, if people can just come into the country and expend resources, vote in certain elections, etc. what's the point of them assimilating and becoming a legitimate citizen?



    And it has always required immigration, but only after 1875 did it suddenly, magically, through the power of unicorn farts (presumably), become "necessary" for the feds to control immigration in order to effectively carry out their naturalization duties despite having done so without any problems for nearly 100 years.
    The fourteenth amendment, not magic. Constitutional amendments are legally binding.



    Again, just because you can pretend it's true doesn't make it true.
    It is true.

    In order for something to pass the necessary and proper test, one must look at the word necessary, understand what it means, understand what it cannot possibly mean, and then go from there.
    Right, and for the necessary argument, the naturalization process requires that people who seek citizenship being acounted for.

    In order for something to be necessary, it must be required. If it is not required, it cannot possibly be necessary.
    And how do you have a naturalization process without immigration law? Explain that.

    The thing being tested is whether federal control over immigration (non-enumerated power) is necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization (enumerated power). We can look at the evidence here, and it's clear.

    For almost 100 years, a uniform code of naturalization existed in the absence of federal control over immigration.
    And the fourteenth undid that, if you don't like it suggest an alternative amendment to your legislators.

    What does that tell us?

    The obvious answer is that federal control over immigration is NOT necessary in order to create a uniform code of naturalization. Thus it fails the necessary and proper test.

    Ergo, your claim that it is necessary must, logically, be a false claim unsupported by logic or reason in any way shape or form.
    It's apparently not the obvious answer, because I disagree.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #139
    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 Kal'Stang View Post
    I have no idea what SCOTUS would rule on it however it is generally understood that the federal government cannot legally make laws on something which the Constitution does not give it power to do so. So in that respect the States can nullify such a law. However if the goverment makes a law under one of its powers then no, the state cannot nullify them from enforcing such a law, they can only refuse to help do so. This is actually how the Federal government was able to ban full automatic guns, by using one of their constitutional powers to ban em. Namely the sale of them using the Commerce clause. Which honestly has been abused on this issue as well as they are extending it to intrastate sales as well as interstate sales on the basis that the gun might be sold to someone which does not reside in that state.
    The cpmmerce clause was never meant to adress general commerce, only commerce between the states themselves. FDR threatened a court packing scheme and the original interpretation was reversed, that expansion was one of the most abusive decisions and acts of political malfeasance(FDR) from the last century.

    What many don't know about the commerce clause is that it was never intended to be used against individuals, only states. It was written with the intent of regulating state commerce. Its purpose was to stop states from creating excessive taxes on goods imported from another state while giving a bonus to selling goods from their state into another state. Unfortenately greedy politicians and CEO's has corrupted it to what it is now a days.
    Nevermind, I noticed previous statement was a set up to this.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #140
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The cpmmerce [sic] clause was never meant to adress [sic] general commerce, only commerce between the states themselves. FDR threatened a court packing scheme and the original interpretation was reversed, that expansion was one of the most abusive decisions and acts of political malfeasance(FDR) from the last century.
    In my opinion, this is the single worst thing that any President of this nation has ever done to this nation. It was this one act which set the precedent that has allowed the federal government to run so far outside of its legitimate bounds, and to grow into the tyrannical, uncontrolled mess that it now is. It is the one act that has most undermined and effectively nullified the Constitution.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •