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 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 178

Thread: Is state nullification constitutional?

  1. #81
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,976

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It happened in 2010 in Plaquemines Parish. Basically the feds were getting in the way of efforts to control the damage and the parish president Billy Nungesser threatened to have them all arrested on obstruction, the feds backed down and complied which pretty much ended the story there. I was trying to find a hard copy with details for you but it was more prominent locally and I'm having trouble finding the original story.
    I can't find a shred of evidence for this claim.

    Municipal officials do not have the power to arrest federal agents who are performing the duties as instructed by a federal entity. If Nungesser objected to the actions of, say, FEMA or the Coast Guard, he can chew them out but he can't arrest them. His only legal option would be to contest the federal action(s) in court.

  2. #82
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,976

    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
    Actually, they kinda did. Read Federalist Papers 78 one of these days.

    In addition to the lack of legal reaction immediately after the decision, we've had over 200 years to modify the status of judicial review via amendment. It hasn't happened, so judicial review stands.

    It is also consistent with the driving force behind much of the current constitution:
    • It provides a check and balance on legislative and executive branches.
    • It is a mechanism to resist an abuse of power by the majority.
    • The primary motivation for adopting the current constitution was specifically to strengthen the federal government, and weaken state powers. In case you missed it, we do not live under the Articles of Confederation.

    And of course, the framers never gave the states any actual power or mechanism to review federal actions for constitutionality.
    Last edited by Visbek; 06-25-13 at 08:59 AM.

  3. #83
    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 all could happen, but I would think if federal agents engaged local PDs they would have a hard time getting through that state alive, lots of places have locals that would be pretty unhappy with that.
    That would make it military, and then the state would lose. Big time. The point I'm making is that the whole set-up seems to be placing people at unnecessary risk. It's one thing for a state to say that they will not be party to the federal law that they disagree with, but it's another thing to pass a law where they would actively attempt to interfere with the feds in their attempts to uphold the laws.

    If a state decided, for example, to arrest and prosecute all INS agents who attempt to perform their jobs for interfering with state sovereignty, citing the Kentucky Resolution as their basis, they'd be ****ed. Plain and simple. Whereas a state can easily say that they will not assist in the execution of immigration laws. That distinction is a big one as far as ramifications goes.

    Sure it is, the feds got into a pissing contest with the locals and lost.
    They only "lost" because they decided to back down. The feds have a lot more firepower on their side. If they choose to pursue things, they will win. Not because of law, but because the power differential is in their favor. The laws and structure of the government has been **** upon by both sides for so many reasons already that they have become meaningless these days. We live in a world where federal authority is supreme and the only thing that prevents total domination is that the feds are willing to give the illusion of some degree of state sovereignty.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #84
    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
    That would make it military, and then the state would lose. Big time. The point I'm making is that the whole set-up seems to be placing people at unnecessary risk. It's one thing for a state to say that they will not be party to the federal law that they disagree with, but it's another thing to pass a law where they would actively attempt to interfere with the feds in their attempts to uphold the laws.
    Incorrect, the feds would be the aggressor, they are breaking the law.

    If a state decided, for example, to arrest and prosecute all INS agents who attempt to perform their jobs for interfering with state sovereignty, citing the Kentucky Resolution as their basis, they'd be ****ed. Plain and simple. Whereas a state can easily say that they will not assist in the execution of immigration laws. That distinction is a big one as far as ramifications goes.
    Immigration policy is a federal enumerated power, firearms are not, environmental concerns are not, taxes are, healthcare is not, etc.



    They only "lost" because they decided to back down. The feds have a lot more firepower on their side. If they choose to pursue things, they will win. Not because of law, but because the power differential is in their favor. The laws and structure of the government has been **** upon by both sides for so many reasons already that they have become meaningless these days. We live in a world where federal authority is supreme and the only thing that prevents total domination is that the feds are willing to give the illusion of some degree of state sovereignty.[/QUOTE]
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #85
    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 Visbek View Post
    I can't find a shred of evidence for this claim.

    Municipal officials do not have the power to arrest federal agents who are performing the duties as instructed by a federal entity. If Nungesser objected to the actions of, say, FEMA or the Coast Guard, he can chew them out but he can't arrest them. His only legal option would be to contest the federal action(s) in court.
    1) I didn't address you 2) yes they do, because that's exactly what was threatened. 3) You haven't been right on very much here. So this will be our last exchange in this thread.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #86
    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
    Incorrect, the feds would be the aggressor, they are breaking the law.
    Who cares about law in such a scenario?

    Immigration policy is a federal enumerated power

    No it isn't. Not even remotely close. Immigration became federal with judicial activism in 1875. don't pretend to be an expert on the constitution if you think that Immigration is an enumerated power. You can't possibly be an expert if you think that.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #87
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,397

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    I voted 'yes', but taken at face value.

    Yes, technically speaking, on paper, it's constitutional. Is it enforceable? No, it hasn't been for quite some time. And we're not going to get it back, either.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  8. #88
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:28 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,976

    Re: Is state nullification constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    1) I didn't address you 2) yes they do, because that's exactly what was threatened. 3) You haven't been right on very much here. So this will be our last exchange in this thread.
    Welcome to the Ignore List.

  9. #89
    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
    Who cares about law in such a scenario?
    Obviously, in that scenario the locals would. And if the feds initiate aggression they have broken multiple laws.



    No it isn't. Not even remotely close. Immigration became federal with judicial activism in 1875. don't pretend to be an expert on the constitution if you think that Immigration is an enumerated power. You can't possibly be an expert if you think that.
    The reasoning was that the immigration process falls under the naturalization powers of the federal government. It can actually be tied in neatly without much logical twisting.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #90
    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 reasoning was that the immigration process falls under the naturalization powers of the federal government. It can actually be tied in neatly without much logical twisting.
    Nonsense. Uniform rules of naturalization do not grant sole authority over determining residency. It's an imense distortion, and utter abandonment of logic, to say that residency should be determined,defined, and controlled by the rules which govern becoming a citizen because one can easily maintain residency with no intention of gaining citizenship.

    The Federal government can say "Yeah, here are the rules for becoming naturalized citizens of this nation. This includes receiving federal permission to reside in the US. If you receive State permission but not federal permission, this will prevent you from being able to attain citizenship." and that'd be fine. But to usurp state authority over their own residency laws and take full responsibility over determining residency? Miles and miles away from an enumerated power.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •