• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is state nullification constitutional?

Is state nullification constitutional?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 35.7%

  • No

    Votes: 24 57.1%

  • Other/Don't know

    Votes: 3 7.1%
  • Total voters
    42
AlabamaPaul said:
Again, this is all being done due to the current political divisiveness. We began as one nation, but the longer we exist, the more we divide, much like cellular division...
Click to expand...
That's part of it, but I think the devisiveness is more a symptom of what happens when people want to preserve the republic against people who are willing to strip protections for things they want. I think the biggest problems were laid out during the civil war, fighting secession based upon preserving the Union(though there is no basis for that power in the constitution), when secession was removed it then led to the 1900s and the expansions of the federal, only one of those amendments was stricken(prohibition), the expansions of Wilson, the Roosevelts, Nixon(EPA), CAFE standards, and then of course the latest grouping of stupid laws post 9/11 have laid a foundation to slip in many extra constitutional legislative pieces, and of course we have a SCOTUS that is all over the place, many times falling all over itself to legalize the illegal legislation.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's part of it, but I think the devisiveness is more a symptom of what happens when people want to preserve the republic against people who are willing to strip protections for things they want. I think the biggest problems were laid out during the civil war, fighting secession based upon preserving the Union(though there is no basis for that power in the constitution), when secession was removed it then led to the 1900s and the expansions of the federal, only one of those amendments was stricken(prohibition), the expansions of Wilson, the Roosevelts, Nixon(EPA), CAFE standards, and then of course the latest grouping of stupid laws post 9/11 have laid a foundation to slip in many extra constitutional legislative pieces, and of course we have a SCOTUS that is all over the place, many times falling all over itself to legalize the illegal legislation.
Click to expand...

Yes, as we evolve there is no mechanism in the Constitution to handle it adequately. I do not think you can expect a country currently of >300M citizens to hold the necessary shared values to hold together a society without force as societies are based on shared values and common interests...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Yes, as we evolve there is no mechanism in the Constitution to handle it adequately. I do not think you can expect a country currently of >300M citizens to hold the necessary shared values to hold together a society without force as societies are based on shared values and common interests...
Click to expand...
Slight disagreement here. I think the mechanisms are there, but they have to be taught to new generations properly, states are equipped for the most part with powers to give their citizens what they desire. The federal is limited to protect others who don't want those same policies so that people can for the most part choose their level of governance. The constitution even allows for "necessary and proper" in the rare events that there are questions of need and authority though that was always meant to be rare and the case proven by the federal government.

I usually tell people, the constitution is a brilliant document but our politicians are too stupid to use it properly.
 
In this case of responding to the a tyrannical federal government, I vote Yes. A civil war is brewing in states with contempt for the Obama Administration.

His Administration is pushing laws that are unconstitutional, so the states are in the right with nullification.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Slight disagreement here. I think the mechanisms are there, but they have to be taught to new generations properly, states are equipped for the most part with powers to give their citizens what they desire. The federal is limited to protect others who don't want those same policies so that people can for the most part choose their level of governance. The constitution even allows for "necessary and proper" in the rare events that there are questions of need and authority though that was always meant to be rare and the case proven by the federal government.

I usually tell people, the constitution is a brilliant document but our politicians are too stupid to use it properly.
Click to expand...

The mechanisms were there but Congress abdicated by not challenging Marbury vs Madison. We now live under court rulings...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The mechanisms were there but Congress abdicated by not challenging Marbury vs Madison. We now live under court rulings...
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I definitely agree here. Unfortunately I think the Congress put more faith in an aging country than they maybe should have.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Absolutely, I definitely agree here. Unfortunately I think the Congress put more faith in an aging country than they maybe should have.
Click to expand...

All members of Congress are currently worried about is the next election and maintaining his/her power...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
All members of Congress are currently worried about is the next election and maintaining his/her power...
Click to expand...
Sad truth. Personally I hope people keep waking up and start sending the scumbags home.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Yes, then we get the new scumbag...
Click to expand...
True, but until they start going to prison for their perjuries and other bad actions not much we can do. Perfectly telling is how that little troll Feinstein survived her defense contract scandals, not simply by remaining a free woman(should still be in prison), but also getting reelected. Then there's Marion Barry, getting arrested for smoking crack with a prostitute, elected upon release from prison. If these districts can't do the right thing, their elected reps sure won't.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Yes, then we get the new scumbag...
Click to expand...

Not unless they are committed to serving the people of this nation and not serving their campaign donators. Why do you think Ron Paul did so bad? He had it right, it's just the media was unfair and he didn't accept those large campaign contributions that Romney and Obama took.
 
LaMidRighter said:
True, but until they start going to prison for their perjuries and other bad actions not much we can do. Perfectly telling is how that little troll Feinstein survived her defense contract scandals, not simply by remaining a free woman(should still be in prison), but also getting reelected. Then there's Marion Barry, getting arrested for smoking crack with a prostitute, elected upon release from prison. If these districts can't do the right thing, their elected reps sure won't.
Click to expand...

And there you have concisely stated the problem. Society has outgrown (okay it was always larger) what can currently be controlled through DC which refuses to give up any of the control it has usurped and abdicated throughout the years...
 
Lukas105 said:
Not unless they are committed to serving the people of this nation and not serving their campaign donators. Why do you think Ron Paul did so bad? He had it right, it's just the media was unfair and he didn't accept those large campaign contributions that Romney and Obama took.
Click to expand...

One out of 536 is not a record for which the nation to be overly proud...
 
Tucker Case said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, Tucker Case. :2wave:

It just seems suspicious to me that we have had such a rash of these type problems recently.

Perhaps this administration is testing to see how far it can go with what appears to be overreach? We have seen that the laws they don't agree with tend to be ignored, or skirted around. Plus it tends to clog up the legal system. It will be interesting to watch! :shock:
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Yes, then we get the new scumbag...
Click to expand...

Good afternoon, AP. :2wave:

The elected scumbags we can deal with by voting them out...it's the unelected scumbags in the various agencies that are making laws that we have to live under that bother me! :afraid:
 
polgara said:
Good afternoon, AP. :2wave:

The elected scumbags we can deal with by voting them out...it's the unelected scumbags in the various agencies that are making laws that we have to live under that bother me! :afraid:
Click to expand...

Good afternoon pg. Trading one scumbag for another doesn't really help much, and the agencies are only able to make regulatory declarations through the powers abdicated to them by Congress...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Good afternoon pg. Trading one scumbag for another doesn't really help much, and the agencies are only able to make regulatory declarations through the powers abdicated to them by Congress...
Click to expand...

:agree: However, those "regulatory" declarations seem to carry the force of law! Why and when did Congress abdicate their responsibilities to the people who elected them? It probably didn't start with this administration, but they sure seem to be accelerating, and not that anyone cares, but I don't like it! :argue:
 
polgara said:
:agree: However, those "regulatory" declarations seem to carry the force of law! Why and when did Congress abdicate their responsibilities to the people who elected them? It probably didn't start with this administration, but they sure seem to be accelerating, and not that anyone cares, but I don't like it! :argue:
Click to expand...

It began when Congress refused to take on the Marbury v Madison decision...
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a totally different thing that what I was discussing though. I understand that no state can be compelled to uphold the law. That's why I was talking about something totally different.

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.
Click to expand...

Military is not limited to "defense of borders". If it comes down to it, the argument could be made that the issue falls under federal jurisdiction via military purposes.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the event, but what you describe does not negate the possibility that the reverse could occur, nor does it provide any evidence that the reverse is impossible.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't see what inconsistency this would indicate.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you would if you had actually read both of them.

Irrational justifications for usurping state power via judicial activism should never be entertained if one actually supports state sovereignty.
 
polgara said:
Good afternoon, Tucker Case. :2wave:

It just seems suspicious to me that we have had such a rash of these type problems recently.

Perhaps this administration is testing to see how far it can go with what appears to be overreach? We have seen that the laws they don't agree with tend to be ignored, or skirted around. Plus it tends to clog up the legal system. It will be interesting to watch! :shock:
Click to expand...

Every administration does it. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of how people cite the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. Those explicitly state: "REsolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force."

If one supports the Kentucky resolution, one must logically oppose federal immgiration laws. Protecting the border? Have at it. But deportation? Unconstitutional.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's a totally different thing that what I was discussing though. I understand that no state can be compelled to uphold the law. That's why I was talking about something totally different.
Click to expand...
There is the possiblility for nullifying within their own borders as well. Supremacy applies to that which the federal has enumerated powers over, and states may stop illegal actions within their own borders. It's not just "refusal to enforce", the federal has no jurisdiction unless enforcing a federal power(not to be confused with federal law).



Military is not limited to "defense of borders". If it comes down to it, the argument could be made that the issue falls under federal jurisdiction via military purposes.
Click to expand...
Not really, it has to be a defensive action according to the U.S. Constitution. IOW, federal cannot just call up the military because they are upset that their agents got arrested for legal violations, it would have to be a legitimate threat to the citizens of the U.S., not a simple mission to uphold the federal law.



I'm not familiar with the event, but what you describe does not negate the possibility that the reverse could occur, nor does it provide any evidence that the reverse is impossible.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Tucker Case said:
Every administration does it. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of how people cite the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. Those explicitly state: "REsolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force."

If one supports the Kentucky resolution, one must logically oppose federal immgiration laws. Protecting the border? Have at it. But deportation? Unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Great post. :thumbs: I did not know that. That's why I like this site...you learn something new every day! :thanks:
 
LaMidRighter said:
There is the possiblility for nullifying within their own borders as well. Supremacy applies to that which the federal has enumerated powers over, and states may stop illegal actions within their own borders. It's not just "refusal to enforce", the federal has no jurisdiction unless enforcing a federal power(not to be confused with federal law).
Click to expand...

I'm actually thinking of a federal kidnapping investigation being interfered with by state cops. How would the feds react to that?



Not really, it has to be a defensive action according to the U.S. Constitution. IOW, federal cannot just call up the military because they are upset that their agents got arrested for legal violations, it would have to be a legitimate threat to the citizens of the U.S., not a simple mission to uphold the federal law.
Click to expand...

And in the context of this thread, that argument can be made. Who cares what judges eventually rule on it, or what some guys on the internet say about it? What matters is any cop who decides to arrest the Federal agent may end up arrested himself or worse, involved in a shootout with federal agents. Whatever the final ruling on is of no import to me, as there is a danger present in the existing set up. Find out for sure how **** would actually go down before expecting any LEO to bet his or her life on you (and these lawmakers) being right.

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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem comparable to the situation I described in any way that is meaningful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom