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 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #141
    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 Bob Blaylock View Post
    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.
    That, the 16th amendment ending the prohibition on direct taxation, the stripping of state's rights to secede are the trifecta of tyranny. Expanding the commerce clause though was probably, as you said, the key lynch pin to everything else that would follow.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #142
    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
    However legal immigration and residency are dependent upon the naturalization process.
    Completely false. They are not affected by naturalization at all. It's absurd to claim they are dependent on naturalization because things cannot be dependent on that which has no bearing on them whatsoever.


    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?
    Immigrants can't vote in any elections unless they go through the naturalization process and become citizens. Only citizens can vote in elections. this is just as true right now as it would be if the feds had not usurped sole power over immigration. The benefits of citizenship are not affected by the rules regarding immigration. What a silly question to even ask.

    The fourteenth amendment, not magic. Constitutional amendments are legally binding.
    The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, residency, or naturalization.

    Right, and for the necessary argument, the naturalization process requires that people who seek citizenship being acounted for.
    Of course. Naturalization is requires that those immigrants who wish to become citizens must be documented by the feds in some way, but that, of course, has no ****ing bearing on immigrants who have no desire to become citizens. I've never said otherwise.

    So the question becomes: Why does the government have sole authority over immigration and residency when immigrants who seek residence can do so without ever having the desire to become citizens?

    There is no "desire to become a citizen" test for immigration. There is no expectation to become a citizen for immigrants (despite your previous false claim).

    thus, what is the justification for usurping State authority over immigration and residency under the guise of naturalization, since immigration is obviously not dependent on naturalization?

    And how do you have a naturalization process without immigration law? Explain that.
    Easily, just like they did for 100 years. Allow the states to determine who they grant residency to, as per the constitution (10th amendment), and then add a federal immigration path that is the uniform path to naturalization. As in, anyone who has a desire to eventually become a naturalized citizen must follow the federal path of immigration. those who do not wish to become citizens can utilize one of the state paths to residency/immigration.

    this would mean that a place like Illinois can, if they desire, grant legal residency status to any immigrant who seeks Illinois residency, regardless of their federal status. However, if that immigrant does not have federal status, they cannot move between states and they run the risk of not being allowed to re-enter the country if they leave. They will also prevent themselves from ever becoming naturalized citizens.

    See, the federal monopoly on immigration is not justified by naturalization. That was not the reasoning that was given by the SC either, when they decided to increase federal authority in this regard. The federal power over immigration was invented when California decided to NOT allow a Chinese immigrant into the country. The SC decided that such actions ran the risk of creating an international incident, and that's why what worked for 100 years was suddenly deemed to not work anymore (via judicial activism).

    The 14th had nothing to do with it. Sorry. Disagree all you want, it won't affect reality here.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #143
    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]
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Completely false. They are not affected by naturalization at all. It's absurd to claim they are dependent on naturalization because things cannot be dependent on that which has no bearing on them whatsoever.
    BS. A person cannot be here unless at the discretion of the U.S. and can be deported for being here without permission. This is part of naturalization, but it's also part of defense as a border issue(which I noticed you never touched).




    Immigrants can't vote in any elections unless they go through the naturalization process and become citizens. Only citizens can vote in elections. this is just as true right now as it would be if the feds had not usurped sole power over immigration. The benefits of citizenship are not affected by the rules regarding immigration. What a silly question to even ask.
    And yet some states are trying to assert that they want non-citizens to vote on elections, that is a naturalization issue. The problem with saying immigration and naturalization aren't under federal purview is that there are two powers that prove otherwise.



    The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, residency, or naturalization.
    The fourteenth is a naturalization amendment. It's in section one of the amendment dealing with citizenship, while it was written in regard to the end of slavery it was also written as an evergreen amendment. IOW, it gives citizenship protection duties to the federal, this includes those naturalized and those under the authority of the U.S. Even illegal immigrants(not the amendment) are due certain basic protections, like law enforcement preventing crimes against them, basics like that, and thus it puts a strain on the process of naturalization, because those here legally and in the process are accounted for, resources and assimilation is planned for, and we ease them in. People who just say "to hell with it" and overstay or disrespect our borders put additional strain on the system. That's not deniable.



    Of course. Naturalization is requires that those immigrants who wish to become citizens must be documented by the feds in some way, but that, of course, has no ****ing bearing on immigrants who have no desire to become citizens. I've never said otherwise.
    So we give protections and use resources on people who have no desire to become citizens? This excludes guest workers, students, and asylum seekers. Do we really want people breaking laws, crashing here, eating up resources who have no desire to join the community? And this sentiment, reality is why the naturalization process and immigration powers are necessarily linked by necessary and proper, there is a power that connects the two tests.

    So the question becomes: Why does the government have sole authority over immigration and residency when immigrants who seek residence can do so without ever having the desire to become citizens?
    I don't think they should have sole authority on enforcement, and certainly not residency. However this is a rare case where they actually do have a power allowing them to enforce should a state not do so, and an even rarer case where the state has no power to stop it.

    There is no "desire to become a citizen" test for immigration. There is no expectation to become a citizen for immigrants (despite your previous false claim).
    Yes there is, for a green card and permanent residence a person must be in the process of naturalizing. The only possibly permanent exception is asylum, every thing else is temporary by the visa system.

    thus, what is the justification for usurping State authority over immigration and residency under the guise of naturalization, since immigration is obviously not dependent on naturalization?
    I've explained this enough. It's simple, the U.S. is in charge of naturalization and defense, everything about immigration crosses both of those powers.



    Easily, just like they did for 100 years. Allow the states to determine who they grant residency to, as per the constitution (10th amendment), and then add a federal immigration path that is the uniform path to naturalization. As in, anyone who has a desire to eventually become a naturalized citizen must follow the federal path of immigration. those who do not wish to become citizens can utilize one of the state paths to residency/immigration.
    However states are not supposed to harbor criminals, illegal immigrants in this case, so how do you reconcile that.

    this would mean that a place like Illinois can, if they desire, grant legal residency status to any immigrant who seeks Illinois residency, regardless of their federal status. However, if that immigrant does not have federal status, they cannot move between states and they run the risk of not being allowed to re-enter the country if they leave. They will also prevent themselves from ever becoming naturalized citizens.
    And if INS catches them they are gone.

    See, the federal monopoly on immigration is not justified by naturalization. That was not the reasoning that was given by the SC either, when they decided to increase federal authority in this regard. The federal power over immigration was invented when California decided to NOT allow a Chinese immigrant into the country. The SC decided that such actions ran the risk of creating an international incident, and that's why what worked for 100 years was suddenly deemed to not work anymore (via judicial activism).
    It's not just naturalization, that is simply what we've forced the focum on. Defense is also a factor.

    The 14th had nothing to do with it. Sorry. Disagree all you want, it won't affect reality here.
    It has everything to do with it.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #144
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It still amazes me that Congress didn't challenge Marbury v. Madison at that time, my best guess is they didn't want a full blown political struggle like that because of how new the rebuplic was. It seems though Congress looks more and more to delegate it's powers away, which is not only dangerous for the people of our country but seemingly a tactically ridiculous thing to do.
    I think that it is interesting that none of the Framers appeared to have challenged it either. Like much of the Constitution, judicial review was inherited from English common law and perhaps the Framers implied it or just assumed that people would recognize it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  5. #145
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    The founding fathers did not give the Supreme Court the sole power to determine Constitutionality, nor to uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws. This is a power that this corrupt body illegitimately seized for itself.
    I don't see it as being an attempted seizure of power. Marbury also took some rights away from the Supreme Court that existed under the Judiciary Act but that SCOTUS found to be unconstitutional.

    My guess, though, is that it would have been different if Democratic-Republican presidents were elected rather than the Federalists Washington and Adams. Both favored strong central governments, and so they naturally appointed justices who would fit their designs for the nation. As mentioned before, none of the Founders were free from political ambitions, and a lot of the Constitution was a compromise between opposing ambitions.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  6. #146
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,190

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I think that it is interesting that none of the Framers appeared to have challenged it either. Like much of the Constitution, judicial review was inherited from English common law and perhaps the Framers implied it or just assumed that people would recognize it.
    I think there's a good argument to be made that judicial view was both intended by the framers, and that it was used somewhat extensively between the adoption of the Constitution and Marbury.

    George Mason said that federal judges could "declare an unconstitutional law void. But with regard to every law however oppressive or pernicious which does not fall plainly under this description, they would be under the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Source.

    James Madison said "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void." Source.

    Hamilton's quote in Federalist Paper 78 is the one I've most often heard in favor of judicial review being planned.

    The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .
    And here's a study referencing some earlier cases of judicial review.

    http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...context=facpub
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  7. #147
    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 MadLib View Post
    I think that it is interesting that none of the Framers appeared to have challenged it either. Like much of the Constitution, judicial review was inherited from English common law and perhaps the Framers implied it or just assumed that people would recognize it.
    I think JR was the first real test of Congress and my best guess is they didn't want something divisive that early in the republic. To be fair, that article was kind of loose and an argument for or against judicial review could go either way, I don't read it as establishing the high court as much more than a check to lower courts, or that must nullify unconstitutional laws. The big problem is when the court twists to uphold laws that are obviously not found within the purview of the federal.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #148
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I think JR was the first real test of Congress and my best guess is they didn't want something divisive that early in the republic. To be fair, that article was kind of loose and an argument for or against judicial review could go either way, I don't read it as establishing the high court as much more than a check to lower courts, or that must nullify unconstitutional laws. The big problem is when the court twists to uphold laws that are obviously not found within the purview of the federal.
    That goes both ways, though. If there is no potential for them to uphold unconstitutional laws, they also do not have the ability to strike them down. They are sort of the last resort, when both the President and Congress are complicit in passing an unconstitutional act.

    The thing about Congress is that it is, for the most part, glad lose power, or at least the appearance of power. Sure, they whine and complain whenever the president gives a far-reaching executive order, but they are more than happy to pass legislation to give him more authority. They'd rather
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  9. #149
    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 MadLib View Post
    That goes both ways, though. If there is no potential for them to uphold unconstitutional laws, they also do not have the ability to strike them down. They are sort of the last resort, when both the President and Congress are complicit in passing an unconstitutional act.

    The thing about Congress is that it is, for the most part, glad lose power, or at least the appearance of power. Sure, they whine and complain whenever the president gives a far-reaching executive order, but they are more than happy to pass legislation to give him more authority. They'd rather
    I can agree with this. I am not a fan of judicial review, for the reason that it allows for a corrupt court to use interpretations to remove citizen protections, last century showed a lot of that, and there are some real troubling rulings presently.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #150
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    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.

    Nevermind, I noticed previous statement was a set up to this.
    some info for you

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
    22 Jan. 1788

    The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience.

Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •