Is state nullification constitutional?

Yes and I don't give a damn what the SCOTUS says about it...

polgara said:

Great post. :thumbs: I did not know that. That's why I like this site...you learn something new every day! :thanks:

Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm DP's resident "Anti-federalist", so I tend to argue some strange cases from a small government perspective.

Anagram said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, sovreignty lies with the states.

Tucker Case said:

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

Click to expand...

Hard to tell, I'm thinking that would actually be a situation where the state would invite the feds. In the case where there was a power struggle I think the state would still allow them to join the investigation.

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.

Click to expand...

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 doesn't seem comparable to the situation I described in any way that is meaningful.

Click to expand...

Sure it is, the feds got into a pissing contest with the locals and lost.

I've just read the last series of posts with amazement, trying to think what fantasy land the people who posted them imagine they are living in.

All these comments advocating "states rights" and positing "what if" scenarios of Feds fighting local police act like States attempting nullification are already in active rebellion just like South Carolina immediately prior to the start of the Civil War.

Despite wishful thinking, nothing could be further from the truth. All they are doing by these attempts at nullification is trying to get a legal challenge before SCOTUS in hopes the Justices will find the applicable Federal law un-Constitutional. It is also in a hope to make the issues moot by getting Congress to repeal the unpopular law too. That's it.

Geez people, step into reality here.

LaMidRighter said:

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...

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.

Bob Blaylock said:

The founding fathers did not give the Supreme Court the sole power to determine Constitutionality

Click to expand...

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.

LaMidRighter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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]

Visbek said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LaMidRighter said:

Incorrect, the feds would be the aggressor, they are breaking the law.

Click to expand...

Who cares about law in such a scenario?

Immigration policy is a federal enumerated power

Click to expand...

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.

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.

LaMidRighter said:

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.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the Ignore List.

Tucker Case said:

Who cares about law in such a scenario?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LaMidRighter said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't see any incongruencies, the fourteenth pretty much establishes immigration rules for the U.S. by setting the naturalization duties to the federal. It then stands to reason if the U.S. is charged with enforcing naturalization then they must be the ones to set uniform immigration policies.

LaMidRighter said:

I don't see any incongruencies, the fourteenth pretty much establishes immigration rules for the U.S. by setting the naturalization duties to the federal.

Click to expand...

Naturalization =/= immigration. You won't see the incongruities if you are ignoring the obvious truth.

Naturalization means acquired citizenship. Acquired citizenship is not at all the same thing as immigration. It takes an abandon,ment of logic to imply that rules about aquiring citizenship means that you can take total control over something else that is not acquiring citizenship.

Tucker Case said:

Naturalization =/= immigration. You won't see the incongruities if you are ignoring the obvious truth.

Naturalization means acquired citizenship. Acquired citizenship is not at all the same thing as immigration. It takes an abandon,ment of logic to imply that rules about aquiring citizenship means that you can take total control over something else that is not acquiring citizenship.

Click to expand...

Naturalization is the legal immigration process, once someone immigrates they are expected to naturalize in order to obtain legal citizen status. Yes, Immigration is the actual act of crossing borders to move to the U.S. regardless of status, but for the naturalization part, to remain here legally, it is a duty charged to the federal. The Federal is charged with removing people who refuse to naturalize or attempt to circumvent the system, which is why, according to SCOTUS and IMO as well the only natural logical conclusion is for them to have immigration authority.

LaMidRighter said:

Naturalization is the legal immigration process

Click to expand...

False. Naturalization is the legal process in which people acquire citizenship (if they are not natural citizens).

once someone immigrates they are expected to naturalize in order to obtain legal citizen status.

Click to expand...

absolutely, positively, undeniably false. that's just some nonsense you made up and pretended to be true. Don't do that.

Tucker Case said:

False. Naturalization is the legal process in which people acquire citizenship (if they are not natural citizens).



absolutely, positively, undeniably false. that's just some nonsense you made up and pretended to be true. Don't do that.

Click to expand...

1) Not false, the naturalization process is one of a few paths to citizenship, i.e. legal immigration. The others are political asylum, refugee status, or guest visas. Basically only citizens have the right of permanent residence in the U.S. via the naturalization process. The only way to start that is immigration, documented immigration. 2) Not false by any stretch. If someone is caught here without documented status they are detained and deported, that's why we have INS to begin with.

LaMidRighter said:

1) Not false, the naturalization process is one of a few paths to citizenship, i.e. legal immigration.

Click to expand...

You are redefining the words into synonyms which they are not in order to irrationally justify a big government position. Don't do that, it's fallacious.

Basically only citizens have the right of permanent residence in the U.S. via the naturalization process.

Click to expand...

Completely made up nonsense. you obviously do not know anything about the immigration process. When a person is granted permanent resident alien status (green card) they are NOT expected to become naturalized citizens. And non-citizens are granted permanent residency before they are even allowed to seek naturalization.

Seriously, you obviously do not have any knowledge about how immigration works, La. that puts yu at a serious disadvantag ein this discussion because you seem to have a great many false beliefs about immigration that are not supported by any facts whatsoever.

2) Not false by any stretch. If someone is caught here without documented status they are detained and deported, that's why we have INS to begin with.

Click to expand...

And that has nothing (NOTHING) to do with naturalization. Immigration is NOT naturalization, despite your repeated attempts to pretend they are the same thing.

Tucker Case said:

You are redefining the words into synonyms which they are not in order to irrationally justify a big government position. Don't do that, it's fallacious.

Click to expand...

No, I am not, immigration and naturalization are two different things, but naturalization cannot happen without immigration. You can't be a U.S. naturalized citizen of European origin, or elsewhere if you choose to remain in your country permanently. However one can immigrate illegally if not naturalized. It's the difference between the action and the status. However since one must immigrate to naturalize it isn't that far fetched that the power covers the laws regarding immigration.

Completely made up nonsense. you obviously do not know anything about the immigration process. When a person is granted permanent resident alien status (green card) they are NOT expected to become naturalized citizens. And non-citizens are granted permanent residency before they are even allowed to seek naturalization.

Click to expand...

There's nothing made up, they are not citizens until naturalization, and the green card may be revoked, or otherwise can expire. That person is a non-citizen immigrant, but typically the green card is the first step towards naturalization.

Seriously, you obviously do not have any knowledge about how immigration works, La. that puts yu at a serious disadvantag ein this discussion because you seem to have a great many false beliefs about immigration that are not supported by any facts whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Immigration is based upon the move to a new location. Naturalization is the recognition of that move as a legal recourse to obtain citizenship based upon certain criteria. There are gray areas in the laws, and lots of them, but I do in fact understand the issue.

And that has nothing (NOTHING) to do with naturalization. Immigration is NOT naturalization, despite your repeated attempts to pretend they are the same thing.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE] I never said the two were the same thing. In fact I made it clear earlier that they are an action and a process. However because the process is dependent upon the action it only makes sense that both would fall under the purview of the granted power of the naturalization process. Thus this is one of the few federal powers that would fall under the supremacy clause.

LaMidRighter said:

No, I am not, immigration and naturalization are two different things, but naturalization cannot happen without immigration.

Click to expand...

So? There can be multiple paths to immigration with only one path to naturalization. The enumerated power of creating uniform laws of naturalization doesn't justify the usurpation of State sovereignty. I'm not saying that state's should have the power to affect citizenship, I'm saying they should have the authority to legally grant residency status.

There's nothing made up

Click to expand...

False. you completely made up the claim that only citizens have the right of permanent residence as well as your claim that immigrants are expected to become citizens. Bot of those claims are totally false claims.

Legal permanent residents have the right of permanent residence. They can lose that right, but not because they do not attain citizenship.

they are not citizens until naturalization, and the green card may be revoked, or otherwise can expire.

Click to expand...

Naturalized citizenship can also be revoked.

The point is that residency is not naturalization, ergo residency and immigration is not an enumerated federal power.

That person is a non-citizen immigrant, but typically the green card is the first step towards naturalization.

Click to expand...

So? The feds are free to give out green cards if they wish. That doesn't usurp state authority. Preventing the state's from granting residency to that state to aliens as they see fit, however, does usurp state authority. Naturalization does not grant the feds the authority to remove that power from the states.

Immigration is based upon the move to a new location.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It' snot based on getting permission from the federal government to move to a new location.

Naturalization is the recognition of that move as a legal recourse to obtain citizenship based upon certain criteria.

Click to expand...

Completely made up nonsense. First, Naturalization is not recognition of ****. It's the process by which immigrants can become citizens if they choose to do so. This process has certain criteria which must be met.

Those criteria include the federal immigration process.

Here's the thing, though. The above would not be changed at ALL if the States had the power to determine their own residency laws. If someone underwent a STATE'S immigration process, it would not affect their status in the FEDERAL immigration process in any way. The uniform laws of naturalization remain uniform. No enumerated power is affected.

But the feds have usurped state sovereignty in this regard and prevent states from having their own paths to legal immigration.

There are gray areas in the laws, and lots of them, but I do in fact understand the issue.

Click to expand...

there are no gray areas. You are flat out wrong when you say things like "Naturalization is the legal immigration process" It's not. That's totally false. There are plenty of legal immigrants who have not been a part of the naturalization process at all. In fact, you are 180 degrees form correct in that statement. Federally sanctioned-Immigration (what you are calling legal immigration, but since the laws that guide these laws are unconstitutional, I will call it thusly in this thread) is part of the Naturalization process, but that does not preclude other forms of legal immigration (State-Sanctioned immigration, for example)

I never said the two were the same thing. In fact I made it clear earlier that they are an action and a process. However because the process is dependent upon the action it only makes sense that both would fall under the purview of the granted power of the naturalization process. Thus this is one of the few federal powers that would fall under the supremacy clause.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to usurp state sovereignty though, because allowing different paths to perform the action does not affect the process in any way.

Irrational justifications for big government should not be dismissed by using the "it only makes sense that I cannot rationally justify my position" line of reasoning.

LaMidRighter said:

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.

Click to expand...

(1) Any post is fair game for any member-- you ought to know that by now.

(2) A threat to do X is not enough to legalize X.

(3) Actually he was cleaning your clock.

Visbek said:

Welcome to the Ignore List.

Click to expand...

No, please don't ignore anyone here.

I hardly ever compliment anyone, but you are doing such a good job
with your well-written and well-informed replies that it would be a shame
for you to drop out against anyone now.