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 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #31
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,558
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    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.



    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.
    Well that is an understandable argument since I personnally lost all trust in this government after passage of the Patriot Act. However, the argument was whether or not nullification was Constitutional and both the Supremacy Clause and all Supreme Court decisions whenever the issue was placed before them indicate it is NOT Constitutional.

    As long as we remain citizens of states who remain part of The UNITED States, we have to live with that fact. Whether we should remain under this government is a different issue entirely.

  2. #32
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:46 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,002

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    The Supremacy clause only applies to actions that the federal government takes legitimately, within the powers that the Constitution delegates to it.
    Sure. But it's the job of the judiciary to determine whether a law or action is constitutional. The states have no mechanism to arbitrarily declare that "X is unconstitutional."

    History also clearly shows us that in many cases, the states object to something for political reason rather than out of an enlightened concept of the separation of powers. E.g. the state of Alabama ultimately was not justified in upholding and promoting segregation, and was happy to use "state's rights" as a political prop to continue a variety of harmful racist policies. To imagine that state governments are not every bit as political and angling to increase their power and influence as the federal government, is nave.


    Our federal government now does many, many, many things which fall well outside its legitimate power.
    That's your opinion. And while you are entitled to your opinion, the reality is that there is no objective or impartial way to determine whether a law or action is "constitutional." The Constitution and the laws were written by human beings; the framers were pretty much all politicians, with their own conflicting agendas; they were in many respects written with the intention of granting future generations latitude; and it us up to us, the living, to decide how we want our government to operate.

    And like it or not, sometimes we just have to disobey the Constitution. I realize, of course, that few people actually like to admit it, but sooner or later everyone does it or demands it. The Constitution is not perfect; it was written not just by human beings, but politicians who had no choice but to strike ugly compromises to get the thing done. The framers are no longer alive, could not have predicted the precise challenges facing future generations, and... they're dead. They don't have to live with the consequences of policy decisions allegedly made in their name.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    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.
    Incorrect.

    Neither the legislative nor executive branches can make a binding declaration that their actions are constitutional; I'm explicitly stating that federal and state laws are subject to judicial review.

    In turn, the courts are subject to several checks and balances, including appointment by the Executive Branch, confirmation by the Legislature, the possibility of impeachment, and the option of amending the Constitution. It's not perfect, but it's a decent option.

  3. #33
    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
    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.

    Federal law is only as applicable as the authority to enforce it, under a proper interpretation the feds would lose a majority of challenges.
    But State's have no power to determine whether or not something falls outside of the federal government's constitutional authority. The example you give is not one where the Feds were attempting to execute the duties dictated to them by a federal law. That is a major distinction between that analogy and the hypothetical scenario in the thread. One that prevents teh two scenarios form being comparable, in fact.

    The feds backed down in the analogy, presumably because they were NOT carrying out their duties (as defined by federal law). If there was a federal law calling on them to do what they were doing, however, then it's a totally different matter.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #34
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,294

    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 think that nullification laws should be legal, but I think the current Supreme Court will rule them unconstitutional 5-4.

  5. #35
    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?

    Question for people who are citing/supporting the Virginia/Kentucky resolutions:

    If a state pased laws preventing the feds from deporting illegal immigrants that reside within that state, would you support that state's right to do so?


    I'm just curious to see how consistent people are.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    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;.
    And you can thank those same Founding Fathers so beloved by 'conservatives' when they think it suits, for that! Remember the system was set-up long ago.

  7. #37
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    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.
    As we can see there are many differing opinions on Constitutional. What certain Founders say outside the Constitution means little as the States never ratified those documents. What we do know for certain is the Founders (Madison among them) set up the Supreme Court. From the earliest days it has functioned as the authority on what is and isn't Constitutional.

    The Court Justices are accountable. Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was impeached in 1804.

    A lot of the hard right rants are highly opinionated, I see the law one way and you another... the determiner was set-up by the Founders.

  8. #38
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,378

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    If states can enact laws that ignore federal marijuana laws and enact sanctuary city policies then surely states can surely enact laws that repeal unconstitutional federal laws.
    If. If not, then those laws can be overturned as well.

  9. #39
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,378

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I think that nullification laws should be legal, but I think the current Supreme Court will rule them unconstitutional 5-4.
    I disagree, the Supreme Court will rule them unconstitutional 9-0, on this the SC is very consistent.

  10. #40
    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
    But State's have no power to determine whether or not something falls outside of the federal government's constitutional authority.
    It's already spelled out in the constitution, the state is under no compulsion to uphold laws based upon powers the federal doesn't have, which is why within their borders those laws are null. I'll give you a perfect example, the 21 drinking law, the federal made 21 the age of consent in the mid 80s, Louisiana did not change the law until the federal coerced(i.e. extortion to us) my state holding highway funds hostage. Even then we had a loophole that allowed 18 year olds to drink under certain circumstances(in a on premise drinking establishment iirc). The federal could never win that in court, they had to coerce my state. Same with gun control, etc. they have no authority.

    The example you give is not one where the Feds were attempting to execute the duties dictated to them by a federal law. That is a major distinction between that analogy and the hypothetical scenario in the thread. One that prevents teh two scenarios form being comparable, in fact.
    Actually, those agents claimed authority under EPA policies and were citing federal law left and right but it doesn't matter, if the law has no authority, they have no authority.

    The states could technically hang these agents for "attempt to overthrow" if they so wanted to and the fed couldn't do a thing about it. The only exception would be if the agents were acting with full authority under legitimate federal purview such as the IRS(taxes), and Military under legitimate defense of borders, etc.



    The feds backed down in the analogy, presumably because they were NOT carrying out their duties (as defined by federal law). If there was a federal law calling on them to do what they were doing, however, then it's a totally different matter.
    It wasn't an analogy, it was a real event. The agents were following the letter of federal law and much like most of those morons were in the way, Nungesser flat told them to stand down or rot in jail awaiting felony charges.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 4 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •