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 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #21
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Study your Constitution folks, it is made up of more than the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments:

    Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
    The Supremacy clause only applies to actions that the federal government takes legitimately, within the powers that the Constitution delegates to it.

    Our federal government now does many, many, many things which fall well outside its legitimate power. In fact, it has many policies which blatantly violate the Constitution. Various corrupt acts of legislation, and various corrupt court rulings notwithstanding, the Supremacy clause does not legitimate these acts of corruption, nor does it deny states the authority and the duty to defy this corruption.
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 06-22-13 at 05:40 PM. Reason: May the Forks be with you, always.
    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.

  2. #22
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    +1

    States can pass laws to try and force an issue or ruling, but they cannot declare by fiat that laws they pass are constitutional, or that a federal law is not constitutional.
    And yet you're eager and willing to grant the federal government the power to pass laws which blatantly violate the Constitution, and to declare by fiat that these laws are Constitutional. The Constitution is meaningless if we allow the federal government the authority which it presently claims and exercises to twist it in whichever way it will.
    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.

  3. #23
    Educator
    USViking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greensboro NC USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,111

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    No, state nullification is not constitutional.

    Didn't we go through this in the 19th century? Yes.

    Is there really any good reason to try it again? No.

    Only the judiciary can nullify Acts of Congress, and Acts of Congress
    enjoy supremacy over the states, which is as it should be for anyone
    who does not cotton to a balkanization of the the country, what with
    Kansas being a stupid little asshole of an American Serbia, Texas being
    a stupid little asshole of an American Croatia, Arizona being a stupid
    little asshole of an American Ruritania, and so on and so forth.

    None of the US states and almost none of the people in them have any
    real and true grievance against the Federal Government. Almost all grievances
    now being voiced are the are petty, feverish, neurotic concoctions in the
    minds of those who do not appreciate how good they have it, hence who
    have it better than they deserve.

    I still do not own a gun, not that I have any objections to responsible
    gun ownership. BUT: I've said it before and I will noever stop saying it:
    if this nullification s*** and its logical consequences gets out of hand I
    will buy a gun, I will learn how to use my gun, and somewhere down
    the line some stupid little nullification asshole won't know what hit him.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Nullification is not constitutional, but in most cases the federal government will not interfere unless they feel immense pressure to do so, as it's not in their best nature.

  5. #25
    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?

    Read this.....Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) --james madison

    Madison says .....the states are the final authority., since it is they who makeup the compact.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch8s42.html
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-22-13 at 06:44 PM.

  6. #26
    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
    It's an interesting question. I don't think it's unconstitutional, but I'm pretty sure it is a violation of federal law to interfere with federal officers who are performing their duty.
    That is dependent upon their duty, and whether it is within federal authority. If an IRS officer is enforcing the tax code a state may not nullify that or interfere as the federal does have tax powers, should there be a situation where a military action is needed, such as a foreign invasion of a state's borders the state may not interfere with the defensive authority of the U.S. military. However if those agents are acting outside of their constitutional authority a state may interfere if they so choose. I'll give you a RL example of this, during the gulf well blowout the feds were "red taping" the cleanup process and more getting in the way than helping, a local parish head told them if they continued he would have them arrested on felony obstruction charges, the feds backed down.

    Thus, such laws would place any officer who tries to enforce state law into the unenviable situation of having to violate federal law in order to do so.
    Federal law is only as applicable as the authority to enforce it, under a proper interpretation the feds would lose a majority of challenges.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #27
    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
    How convenient that the very same corrupt government that refuses to obey the Constitution is given the power to determine what the Constitution does or does not allow it to do; and therefore to rule that the Constitution allows it to do whatever the hell it wants to do;.
    "Prigg" is a perfect example of just how stupid judicial review really is, it states powers not found in the constitution. Basically it's nine agendists with no accountability giving the federal government a pass, now the court relies on that bad precedent to further give a pass to laws that are directly against the citizens of the United States.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #28
    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 Captain Adverse View Post
    Study your Constitution folks, it is made up of more than the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments:

    Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Cout has already ruled in a series of eight cases, that nullification is a violation of the Constitution. Most Specifically in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) where a state law tried to nullify the courts desegregation decision in Brown vs. The Board of Education; and Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), when it ruled A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute.

    So as long as this remains "The UNITED States," states will be bound by both Supreme Court rulings and Federal laws; nullification is just grandstanding.
    Study it yourself, and remember what's been underlined. "Under the authority" means enumerated powers, "in the constitution" means those amendments and articles specifically enumerating those powers. If a power is not granted to the federal then too ****ing bad, they don't have it and must ask the states to relinquish it. There is only ONE exception, and that is when a power is not specifically granted the federal may borrow from another of it's powers if they meet the necessary and proper requirement, they must prove that the law they want is of compelling national interest and must(proper) prove that the need and law are found somewhere within their powers granted.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #29
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,579
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    I find it very interesting that several members who support nullification attempted to use my quote of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) against my position. Interesting because while they correctly point out it is laws (and treaties) enacted under Constitutional authority which are paramount, they completely ignore the second statement in my post where I indicated that in every case where a nullification attempt was challenged before the Supreme Court, the state(s) lost.

    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutional law. This was determined in their own ruling under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). They held that for every violation of a vested legal right, there must be a legal remedy; Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction established under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2; and that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution (affirming the principle of judicial review).

    The purpose of state nullification is to force the Federal government to challenge the issue before the Supreme Court, in hopes the Court will find the law passed by Congress un-Constitutional. Now it is true this experiment has been tried several times in our past history, and some claim with success. However, these successes only occurred when there was no challenge made before the Supreme Court; i.e. either some compromise was reached with Congress (South Carolina’s attempt against the Tariff Acts of 1828/32), or the issue became moot (Northern states nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act by subsequent passage of the 14th Amendment).

    But in EVERY CASE where the issue has come before the Supreme Court, state nullification has failed. This because the Court held in every case that the laws passed by Congress were Constitutional (usually falling under the Commerce Clause) and therefore valid against the states under the Supremacy Clause.

    Today we have states passing laws legalizing marijuana in contravention of the Controlled Substances Act, or laws so restrictive they almost (but not quite) eliminate abortions which violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy per Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). In the case of marijuana there is a sympathetic ear in the Executive Branch which intends (currently) not to challenge the issue. Action is still pending on the anti-abortion laws by local Pro-Choice advocates.

    Still, if either of these issues were presented to the current Justices of the Supreme Court, it is highly likely they would support all prior interpretations of the Supremacy Clause and the state laws would fail. Therefore, my position concerning nullification being inherently un-Constitutional stands.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 06-23-13 at 12:28 AM.

  10. #30
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    I find it very interesting that several members who support nullification attempted to use my quote of the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) against my position. Interesting because while they correctly point out it is laws (and treaties) enacted under Constitutional authority which are paramount, they completely ignore the second statement in my post where I indicated that in every case where a nullification attempt was challenged before the Supreme Court, the state(s) lost.
    Of course, when you put a corrupt government in charge of making its own determination regarding what it is or is not allowed to do, the results are going to favor that corrupt government, and not the people who that government is supposed to represent and serve.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitutional law. This was determined in their own ruling under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
    Quod erat demonstrandum.

    The fox, put in charge of guarding the chickens, claims the chickens for itself rather than protecting the interests of the chickens' rightful owner.
    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 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •