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 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #151
    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 ernst barkmann View Post
    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.
    Right, looking back I oversimplified it. I figured it was a given that people understood that commerce dealing between two governments was to be the limit of the commerce clause so I went to the smallest body that would need federal oversight, state-state, state-federal, etc. basically any trade within U.S. borders was to be the scope of the ninth, and this would be normally trade disputes like rates, distribution, taxes, etc.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #152
    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
    Right, looking back I oversimplified it. I figured it was a given that people understood that commerce dealing between two governments was to be the limit of the commerce clause so I went to the smallest body that would need federal oversight, state-state, state-federal, etc. basically any trade within U.S. borders was to be the scope of the ninth, and this would be normally trade disputes like rates, distribution, taxes, etc.
    one of the problem of commerce under the articles was, that states were in engaging in trade wars and trade barriers with each other.

    one state would make a state mad, and that state would not sell them raw materials, or states would pass laws to protect there product manufacturers, from products of other states...a barrier

  3. #153
    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 ernst barkmann View Post
    one of the problem of commerce under the articles was, that states were in engaging in trade wars and trade barriers with each other.

    one state would make a state mad, and that state would not sell them raw materials, or states would pass laws to protect there product manufacturers, from products of other states...a barrier
    Absolutely. The ninth was there simply to give the U.S. federal government the authority to insure that those trades were equitable. The initial price of goods from South Caroline to New York must be of value such That New York and Georgia are on the same playing field. Should a dispute arise, the federal was to have final authority to then determine who was at fault and rectify the situation.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #154
    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
    Absolutely. The ninth was there simply to give the U.S. federal government the authority to insure that those trades were equitable. The initial price of goods from South Caroline to New York must be of value such That New York and Georgia are on the same playing field. Should a dispute arise, the federal was to have final authority to then determine who was at fault and rectify the situation.
    heres the power you describe:

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and

    by the way, you will notice it dos not say "Controversies between a citizen and the federal government"..but it does mention citizen in every other case.

    because the founders stated that the federal government could not violate the rights of citizens, becuase it did not have the power, becuase government was limited.

  5. #155
    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 ernst barkmann View Post
    heres the power you describe:

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and

    by the way, you will notice it dos not say "Controversies between a citizen and the federal government"..but it does mention citizen in every other case.

    because the founders stated that the federal government could not violate the rights of citizens, becuase it did not have the power, becuase government was limited.
    Right, SCOTUS under FDR twisted the citizen wording to incorporate anything that crosses state borders as subject to regulation should Congress choose to do so. However this was regarding disputes in trade the "controversies" part, and the only reason to "regulate" was by the original definition of "to make regular" or in modern terms, to basically square trade amongst the concerned parties.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #156
    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
    Right, SCOTUS under FDR twisted the citizen wording to incorporate anything that crosses state borders as subject to regulation should Congress choose to do so. However this was regarding disputes in trade the "controversies" part, and the only reason to "regulate" was by the original definition of "to make regular" or in modern terms, to basically square trade amongst the concerned parties.
    to make regular, or to keep commerce flowing..by the way it was 1941/42 when the court said government could take over commerce inside states...it was over an issue of wheat, and a farmer growing it.

  7. #157
    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 ernst barkmann View Post
    to make regular, or to keep commerce flowing..by the way it was 1941/42 when the court said government could take over commerce inside states...it was over an issue of wheat, and a farmer growing it.
    Yep, then that became expanded to allow for the NFA, and later Congresses would go on to pass things like CAFE standards among other abuses because products "crossed state borders".
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #158
    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
    BS. A person cannot be here unless at the discretion of the U.S. and can be deported for being here without permission.
    Because the Federal government has stolen power from the states.

    This is part of naturalization
    Nonsense.

    but it's also part of defense as a border issue(which I noticed you never touched).
    Nonsense. 1. It's not a border issue. This may come as a surprise to you, but deporting people doesn't have any effect at all on border security. Seriously, not a single affect. The borders are no more or less secure if someone is deported. It kind of has a little bit to do with the word "border" having a specific meaning. 2. I have addressed it. The feds are free to control the borders. You just have to remember that border has a meaning, and that meaning is not "whatever the **** la decides to call border security whenever the whim takes him there"




    And yet some states are trying to assert that they want non-citizens to vote on elections
    So? If it's their own state elections, more power to them. It's their right to do so. They can create whatever rules they want for choosing their representatives in the federal government. What's wrong with the 10th amendment? Why are you trying to overturn it?

    that is a naturalization issue.
    How the hell is that a naturalization issue? what the **** nonsense definition of "naturalization" have you invented, dude?


    The problem with saying immigration and naturalization aren't under federal purview is that there are two powers that prove otherwise.
    Nobody has said that Naturalization isn't under the federal purview. It's an enumerated power. Somebody, however, is under the delusion that immigration is an enumerated power when it is not. I'm debating that person now.

    The fourteenth is a naturalization amendment.
    No it isn't. It is an amendment that describes the rights of citizens. Just because the amendment stated that naturalized citizens are citizens doesn't mean it is a "naturalization amendment."



    That's not deniable.
    The problem is that you are using invented definitions of words and pretending they are true. the 14th doesn't state anything about immigrants. Only citizens.

    So we give protections and use resources on people who have no desire to become citizens?
    Of course. This is how it has always been.

    Do we really want people breaking laws, crashing here, eating up resources who have no desire to join the community?
    Of course we do. Without them, our economy would falter greatly. We would have failed as a nation without them. They tend to use fewer resources and break fewer laws than our citizens do, and they contribute hard work and labor for our benefit and all that they ask for in return is the opportunity to work. I WISH our citizens had half the work ethic and only twice the desire for luxury as immigrants do.

    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.
    That irrational, purely fictional demonization of immigrants is why people who like to pretend to support small-government policies will hypocritically **** all over their own supposed ideals when it comes down to immigration laws because they do not really have the balls to support about small government because doing so in a legitimate sense would mean that, sometimes, you have to allow **** that you don't personally agree with to be the law of the land.

    It's hard to promote small-government principles consistently. That's why the vast majority of people fail at it.

    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.
    This is a case of you ****ting all over your professed ideology because you do not have the gumption to follow that ideology through to it's logical conclusions even when the logical conclusion would force you to take a position which runs counter to your personal views on a matter.

    You are doing this interpretive dance because you are starting from your personal view and then trying to justify that view in order to pretend it is not antithetical to your professed ideology.

    You have no idea how often I promote the rights of certain states to engage in behaviors that I personally abhor. Take immigration law, for example. I supported Arizona's law based entirely on the principles I'm discussing here. I ****ing hate that law, and I think it is ignorant bull****. I think the people who created it are scumbags who deserve to be flogged. But I support their right to pass such idiocy, despite the fact that I find them to be vile hateful morons, because I am consistent in my ideology. Not my state, therefore it's not my business to get the law changed.

    I could easily take the big government stance you are promoting on immigration because it would suit my purposes greatly. I could decide, arbitrarily, that Arizona's enforcement of federal laws could endanger foreign relations, for example, like the SC did when they decided to usurp State authority in 1875. That would allow me to doublethink my way into holding two contradictory positions at the same time, as so many people do on immigration, but I don't do that because I know that all I would be doing is lying to myself in order to hold a view.

    Yes there is, for a green card and permanent residence a person must be in the process of naturalizing.
    False. People do not have to enter teh process of naturalization in order to obtain a green card. You are simply wrong.

    The only possibly permanent exception is asylum, every thing else is temporary by the visa system.
    Asylum is merely one path to getting a green card. Once the person receives the green card, they are no different form anyone else with a green card, legally speaking. You seem to be very unaware of the immigration laws in this country.

    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.
    You are using interpretations and redefinitions in order to justify your big government position. It's doublethink.

    However states are not supposed to harbor criminals, illegal immigrants in this case, so how do you reconcile that.
    The laws which make them "criminals" are unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the authority to define immigration laws. It is not an enumerated power.

    And if INS catches them they are gone.
    Because the feds usurped state power to determine residency through judicial activism in 1875. That usurpation of authority was unconstitutional, according to the 10th amendment.

    It's not just naturalization, that is simply what we've forced the focum on. Defense is also a factor.
    Defense ends at the border. If they get in and receive residency permission from a state, the feds need to prove that the individual is a defense risk in order to have authority.

    It has everything to do with it.
    Only in your imagination.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #159
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    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.
    Of course no system is going to be perfect. The Constitution had many holes in it, and potential political strife was one of the smaller holes. That doesn't mean that the Framers didn't intend judicial review.

    I myself support judicial review, but as you said, there is a lot of potential for misinterpretations. Sometimes the SCOTUS rules that something constitutional is clearly unconstitutional (Plessy), and sometimes they uphold a system that is constitutional but completely immoral (Dred Scott). Normally, though, they get it right when it comes to civil liberties.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  10. #160
    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
    Of course no system is going to be perfect. The Constitution had many holes in it, and potential political strife was one of the smaller holes. That doesn't mean that the Framers didn't intend judicial review.
    Well, it's actually a myth that the constitution was full of holes. The big problem is misrepresentation of the plain wording(according to the meaning of those words at the time), the biggest "loopholing" of the constitution started with the Lincoln administration, and the Wilson administration. Everything that followed was just a continuation of abuses.

    I myself support judicial review, but as you said, there is a lot of potential for misinterpretations. Sometimes the SCOTUS rules that something constitutional is clearly unconstitutional (Plessy), and sometimes they uphold a system that is constitutional but completely immoral (Dred Scott). Normally, though, they get it right when it comes to civil liberties.
    Actually, the Supreme Court has a horrible overall history of getting things correct, usually when they get one right at least they hold off a little damage. Unfortunately, many times they got something wrong they've done massive damage, like Brown V. Board(but at least they reversed themselves). Their ruling on Obamacare apparently by Robert's wording was to presrve the commerce clause but the idiot actually expanded the tax powers to something that literally could have invalidated the CC. The CC itself was expanded by a court that felt threatened, and the court used a process it wasn't clear it owned to give same self that process.

    Something has to be done if they are allowed to keep Judicial review I guess is my point. I'm not for or against them having it so much as since they interpreted it for themselves then it should be a legal requirement that they use it properly.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 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
  •