• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Federal Nullification Efforts Mounting in States......

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Uh oh.....looks like the Anti-Gun Nuts/Give up your Rights I will be Protected by Government, aren't so popular anymore. What happened? Almost 4/5ths of the States have enacted some sort of Nullification Laws. On Both Sides of the Aisle. Imagine That. Notice that part that the States wont have to worry about The Fed to much. Wonder how all those Anti- Gunners feel now.....knowing the Feds wont do a damn thing but try and take the matter to court. Wheres Gabbi? Wheres Bloomberg?


Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested — charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.

Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.

The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.

It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.

Yet "the law is clear — the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added.

About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments — despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama's administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn't worth their time to target those people.

Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama's 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.

After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don't apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.

Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.

If enough states resist, "it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.....snip~

Federal nullification efforts mounting in states
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yes. Nothing instills faith in gubbermint like having two different factions of LE running around like the Crips and Bloods.
 

roughdraft274

ThunderCougarFalconBird
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
15,786
Reaction score
9,583
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Uh oh.....looks like the Anti-Gun Nuts/Give up your Rights I will be Protected by Government, aren't so popular anymore.
Hard to take anything you say after this seriously at all. I would have loved to type out a response, but I'm just not that interested in responding to people that think 5th grade insults count as debate.
 

penn1954

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
844
Location
Ft.Wayne In
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Uh oh.....looks like the Anti-Gun Nuts/Give up your Rights I will be Protected by Government, aren't so popular anymore. What happened? Almost 4/5ths of the States have enacted some sort of Nullification Laws. On Both Sides of the Aisle. Imagine That. Notice that part that the States wont have to worry about The Fed to much. Wonder how all those Anti- Gunners feel now.....knowing the Feds wont do a damn thing but try and take the matter to court. Wheres Gabbi? Wheres Bloomberg?


Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested — charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws.

Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.

The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. The recent trend began in Democratic leaning California with a 1996 medical marijuana law and has proliferated lately in Republican strongholds like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback this spring became the first to sign a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.

It seems that there has been an uptick in nullification efforts from both the left and the right," said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law.

Yet "the law is clear — the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added.

About 20 states now have medical marijuana laws allowing people to use pot to treat chronic pain and other ailments — despite a federal law that still criminalizes marijuana distribution and possession. Ceding ground to the states, President Barack Obama's administration has made it known to federal prosecutors that it wasn't worth their time to target those people.

Federal authorities have repeatedly delayed implementation of the 2005 Real ID Act, an anti-terrorism law that set stringent requirements for photo identification cards to be used to board commercial flights or enter federal buildings. The law has been stymied, in part, because about half the state legislatures have opposed its implementation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

About 20 states have enacted measures challenging Obama's 2010 health care laws, many of which specifically reject the provision mandating that most people have health insurance or face tax penalties beginning in 2014.

After Montana passed a 2009 law declaring that federal firearms regulations don't apply to guns made and kept in that state, eight other states have enacted similar laws. Gun activist Gary Marbut said he crafted the Montana measure as a foundation for a legal challenge to the federal power to regulate interstate commerce under the U.S. Constitution. His lawsuit was dismissed by a trial judge but is now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Felons illegally possessing firearms is the most common charge nationally. But the Missouri measure sets it sights on nullifying federal firearms registrations and, among other things, a 1934 law that imposes a tax on transferring machine guns or silencers. Last year, the federal government prosecuted 83 people nationally for unlawful possession of machine guns.

Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.

If enough states resist, "it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.....snip~

Federal nullification efforts mounting in states

I'm all in favor of nullifying a lot that the feds do.
That said,with the courts the way they are now I'm not sure the states can win!:(
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'm still not sure unconstitutional laws are the best way to deal with unconstitutional laws. I like the message some of these states are trying to send, but at the same time it seems a little hypocritical.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm still not sure unconstitutional laws are the best way to deal with unconstitutional laws. I like the message some of these states are trying to send, but at the same time it seems a little hypocritical.
How are these state measures unconstitutional when they aren't addressing any of the enumerated powers the Federal government has higher authority of in the supremacy act?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is really great news for the people.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hard to take anything you say after this seriously at all. I would have loved to type out a response, but I'm just not that interested in responding to people that think 5th grade insults count as debate.
Translation; you don't like it that the Nanny State is being opposed.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Hard to take anything you say after this seriously at all. I would have loved to type out a response, but I'm just not that interested in responding to people that think 5th grade insults count as debate.
No need to explain your limitations to me then. At ALL and Ever!
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I'm all in favor of nullifying a lot that the feds do.
That said,with the courts the way they are now I'm not sure the states can win!:(
Heya Penn.....like Boldin stated from the Piece and he is from California. Home of the Liberal Slant and Progressive failings. The States wont hav to do anything. Especially if the Feds know they will be at odds with Local LEs or get no assistance from them.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Translation; you don't like it that the Nanny State is being opposed.
You got that Right Blaxshep.....translation - can't muster up when the Good News don't turn their way. So first off the top.....try and shut down the losing of face.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ya let me know when a Federal Agent is actually arrested by a state law enforcement officer, and if he's convicted in court, and the conviction sticks, until then its all a bunch of hot air.

Several people in here have cited the Federalist Papers as a key to understanding the Constitution, they may be disappointed to learn that the authors clearly stated that states shouldn't determine what the Constitution means because it creates the obvious problem of not only placing the states over the Federal government but also results in a different understanding of the Constitution for each state.

You can't have a functioning government if there's not a singular meaning as to what the government is and what it can and cannot do.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm still not sure unconstitutional laws are the best way to deal with unconstitutional laws. I like the message some of these states are trying to send, but at the same time it seems a little hypocritical.
The "Supremacy Clause" only pertains to those powers enumerated in the constitution according to the tenth amendment. There is nothing unconstitutional when states nullify a federal law if that law is not found within federal power. The reason states don't fight is money, a process called coercion, wherein the federal takes monies from a state for non-compliance with federal mandates(it's the only recourse of the federal, it's blackmail) they have no other powers When states get sick of this **** and coercion no longer works, the federal will find out just how limited their powers really are.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You can't have a functioning government if there's not a singular meaning as to what the government is and what it can and cannot do.
You also can not have the rights of the people above a limited government when that same government is allowed to subjectively re-interpret the meaning of its own limitations. BTW - The constitution does in fact put the states above the Federal government in all matters not specifically enumerated as Federal powers. The regulation of arms is NOT one of those powers.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Ya let me know when a Federal Agent is actually arrested by a state law enforcement officer, and if he's convicted in court, and the conviction sticks, until then its all a bunch of hot air.

Several people in here have cited the Federalist Papers as a key to understanding the Constitution, they may be disappointed to learn that the authors clearly stated that states shouldn't determine what the Constitution means because it creates the obvious problem of not only placing the states over the Federal government but also results in a different understanding of the Constitution for each state.

You can't have a functioning government if there's not a singular meaning as to what the government is and what it can and cannot do.
Nope, that's not what they said. If you are referring to the limitations of the confederacy that was obvious, but no Federalist writing, or anti-Federalist writing ever argued for a centralized government superior to it's states. Know why a Republic was chosen? Because the states were to be the origin of power. This means the federal is still subserviant to the states.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Ya let me know when a Federal Agent is actually arrested by a state law enforcement officer, and if he's convicted in court, and the conviction sticks, until then its all a bunch of hot air.

Several people in here have cited the Federalist Papers as a key to understanding the Constitution, they may be disappointed to learn that the authors clearly stated that states shouldn't determine what the Constitution means because it creates the obvious problem of not only placing the states over the Federal government but also results in a different understanding of the Constitution for each state.

You can't have a functioning government if there's not a singular meaning as to what the government is and what it can and cannot do.
Heya Wiseone. :2wave: Yeah the piece points that out here.

Yet "the law is clear — the supremacy clause (of the U.S. Constitution) says specifically that the federal laws are supreme over contrary state laws, even if the state doesn't like those laws," Winkler added.

The fact that U.S. courts have repeatedly upheld federal laws over conflicting state ones hasn't stopped some states from flouting those federal laws — sometimes successfully.....snip~

Plus then note Holder to the Governor of Kansas.....then the Feds response.

A new Kansas law makes it a felony for a federal agent to attempt to enforce laws on guns made and owned in Kansas. A similar Wyoming law, passed in 2010, made it a misdemeanor. The Missouri bill also would declare it a misdemeanor crime but would apply more broadly to all federal gun laws and regulations — past, present, or future — that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms."

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter in late April to the Kansas governor warning that the federal government is willing to go to court over the new law.

"Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities," Holder wrote.

Federal authorities in the western district of Missouri led the nation in prosecutions for federal weapons offenses through the first seven months of the 2013 fiscal year, with Kansas close behind, according to a data clearinghouse at Syracuse University.....snip~

So what would happen if a local prosecutor actually charges a federal agent for doing his or her job?

"They're going to have problems if they do it — there's no doubt about it," said Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based entity that promotes states' rights. "There's no federal court in the country that's going to say that a state can pull this off."

Yet states may never need to prosecute federal agents in order to make their point.

If enough states resist, "it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to force their laws down our throats," Boldin said.....snip~

Do you think Boldin took into account the same argument you applied? So now what happens.....when the Feds wont even try?

BTW Indiana did the same with guns made in the State. No word from Holder and the Feds.....huh?
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You also can not have the rights of the people above a limited government when that same government is allowed to subjectively re-interpret the meaning of its own limitations. BTW - The constitution does in fact put the states above the Federal government in all matters not specifically enumerated as Federal powers. The regulation of arms is NOT one of those powers.
He either didn't understand the Federalist papers, took something out of context to fit his worldview, or directly borrowed some hack professor's writings on it. No one who reads the actual document with any integrity makes such an assertion that the founders argued for centralization.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The "Supremacy Clause" only pertains to those powers enumerated in the constitution according to the tenth amendment. There is nothing unconstitutional when states nullify a federal law if that law is not found within federal power. The reason states don't fight is money, a process called coercion, wherein the federal takes monies from a state for non-compliance with federal mandates(it's the only recourse of the federal, it's blackmail) they have no other powers When states get sick of this **** and coercion no longer works, the federal will find out just how limited their powers really are.
It's not the state legislature's place to find these federal laws unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently held that these laws would violate the Supremacy Clause. Even if in a perfect world these nullification laws aren't unconstitutional, in every practical sense they are, and I'm not sure this is the best way to go about this.
 

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
He either didn't understand the Federalist papers, took something out of context to fit his worldview, or directly borrowed some hack professor's writings on it. No one who reads the actual document with any integrity makes such an assertion that the founders argued for centralization.
Still that's better than that weak crying and whining with what the Anti Gun Nuts don't like when people are saying something, and discovering that the majority is against them. Especially when no cameras are around. Towns and States all across the country. 4/5ths of a Country Speaks volumes.

What Fed is going to jump knowing they wont get any assistance? That their only measure is to take it to court to check if it is an Enumerated Power.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's not the state legislature's place to find these federal laws unconstitutional.
Yes it is. It's state borders that are where the federal agents will attempt to enforce unconstitutional law. The States are sovereign and the federal powers are limited, this is not an aggression on the U.S. by the U.S. It's a federal aggression against the states.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that these laws would violate the Supremacy Clause. Even if in a perfect world these nullification laws aren't unconstitutional, in every practical sense they are, and I'm not sure this is the best way to go about this.
The Supreme Court also backed "seperate but equal", upheld suspension of Habeas Corpus and federal powers to enforce the union "after the fact" of the civil war(which were direct violations BTW), they twisted to uphold Obamacare, expanded eminent domain for "commercial use", and have gotten hundreds of other judgements flat wrong, I have NO idea why you folks keep backing **** decisions by them.

Let's start from the beginning, the states are the origin of power. Until the 17th amendment the Senate was a direct representation of the states, elected in the state houses, and appointed from there on. Why do you think the states would have a house of their own with equal representation if the federal was to own all the power?
 
Last edited:

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yes it is. It's state boarders that are where the federal agents will attempt to enforce unconstitutional law. The States are sovereign and the federal powers are limited, this is not an aggression on the U.S. by the U.S. It's a federal aggression against the states. The Supreme Court also backed "seperate but equal", upheld suspension of Habeas Corpus and federal powers to enforce the union "after the fact" of the civil war(which were direct violations BTW), they twisted to uphold Obamacare, expanded eminent domain for "commercial use", and have gotten hundreds of other judgements flat wrong, I have NO idea why you folks keep backing **** decisions by them.
I wasn't backing them from a legal sense, but a practical sense. What they say is the law until its declared otherwise, regardless of whether it should be or not. In light of that, I don't think passing laws that will be declared unconstitutional is the best way to go about rejecting the unconstitutional federal gun control laws.

Let's start from the beginning, the states are the origin of power. Until the 17th amendment the Senate was a direct representation of the states, elected in the state houses, and appointed from there on. Why do you think the states would have a house of their own with equal representation if the federal was to own all the power?
Of course the federal government was not to own all the power. But the power to decide the constitutionality of federal laws is one power the states do not have.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I wasn't backing them from a legal sense, but a practical sense. What they say is the law until its declared otherwise, regardless of whether it should be or not. In light of that, I don't think passing laws that will be declared unconstitutional is the best way to go about rejecting the unconstitutional federal gun control laws.
Incorrect. Any powers not delegated to the federal are reserved to the states specifically. Tenth amendment, if the federal doesn't have power they don't have supremacy, a state could pass a law tomorrow declaring ATF agents enemies within borders to be shot on contact and there isn't a thing the federal can legally do, regardless of SCOTUS. Any federal response would be illegal and in the wrong under any proper scrutiny. This is the tenth amendment.



Of course the federal government was not to own all the power. But the power to decide the constitutionality of federal laws is one power the states do not have.
Not true, states had been nullifying federal law since the earliest days of the constitution.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of course the federal government was not to own all the power. But the power to decide the constitutionality of federal laws is one power the states do not have.
You do realize the absurdity of this comment?

If the states do not have that power, only the Federal government would have the power to decide the constitutionality of its own laws.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You do realize the absurdity of this comment?

If the states do not have that power, only the Federal government would have the power to decide the constitutionality of its own laws.
Well in Ableman v Booth they did give themselves that power. In a practical sense, regardless of whether it should be legal or not, they do.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well in Ableman v Booth they did give themselves that power. In a practical sense, regardless of whether it should be legal or not, they do.
Well yea, that is why the country is going to hell in a hand basket. The idea that contemporary jurisprudence applies to the constitution nullifies it.
 
Top Bottom