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

[Wiseone]

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.

No, the Supremacy Clause, 200 hundreds of judical rulings, and a Civil War means the states are beneath the authority of the Federal government. The Federal government does have its limits, as defined in the Constitution, which is defined by the SCOTUS, but where the Federal Government and the states conflict and the court determines it to be an area of jurisdicition of the Federal Government, then the Feds win.

And here's the Federalist Papers, Number 80.

The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Like he says, if you have the states rule on national issues, you're going to have 13, or now 50, different sets of rulings and how can you have 50 sets of rulings on national issues? Which one is going to over rule the other? Likewise 50 different rulings on Constitutional issues isn't going to make any sense at all nor is it any way to run a country.

Hence why, a state cannot tell the Federal government what isn't constitutional if the Fed's have decided it is or if the SCOTUS has decided it is, if it had to go through the courts because there must be a single definitive answer as to what the law is and isn't.

Now the states aren't powerless, they have the courts, and they can take the Federal Government to court, but ultimately if this country is going to stay together it needs definitive answers for these kind of questions that arise under the law regardless of whether you like all the answers or not.

 

[LaMidRighter]

No, the Supremacy Clause, 200 hundreds of judical rulings, and a Civil War means the states are beneath the authority of the Federal government. The Federal government does have its limits, as defined in the Constitution, which is defined by the SCOTUS, but where the Federal Government and the states conflict and the court determines it to be an area of jurisdicition of the Federal Government, then the Feds win.

And here's the Federalist Papers, Number 80.



The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Like he says, if you have the states rule on national issues, you're going to have 13, or now 50, different sets of rulings and how can you have 50 sets of rulings on national issues? Which one is going to over rule the other? Likewise 50 different rulings on Constitutional issues isn't going to make any sense at all nor is it any way to run a country.

Hence why, a state cannot tell the Federal government what isn't constitutional if the Fed's have decided it is or if the SCOTUS has decided it is, if it had to go through the courts because there must be a single definitive answer as to what the law is and isn't.

Now the states aren't powerless, they have the courts, and they can take the Federal Government to court, but ultimately if this country is going to stay together it needs definitive answers for these kind of questions that arise under the law regardless of whether you like all the answers or not.

You very much misunderstood it. It wasn't a call to centralization, it was an understanding that only certain issues like taxes, a common currency, and defense were to be consolidated. See, the founders made a direct point to specifically grant a smaller amount of powers to the federal and repeated it throughout.

EDIT - You are laughably wrong on the supremacy clause, read the document. Anything not in the purview of the federal is an illegal order, and courts getting it wrong does not change that.

 

[LaMidRighter]

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.

Anything not based in constitutional authority is null, this is why the supremacy clause is so limited. Courts do not have the right to expand it to "anything" the federal wants, and any court decision which does so should be nullified, if SCOTUS won't do it the states must, and yes, the states do have purview over their own enumerated powers, should the federal encroach they are outside of their authority and should face consequences.

 

[iliveonramen]

Didn't this happen during Civil Rights and the National Guard was called in?

 

[jamesrage]

[COLOR="#800000"][B]Uh oh[/B][/COLOR].....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~

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/federal-nullification-efforts-mounting-states-070843059.html;_ylt=Anba.AyND7FagjRyosDvc9AJVux_;_ylu=X3oDMTJhNGFjbzhwBG1pdANBVFQgMyBTdG9yeSBKdW1ib3Ryb24gSG9tZSBDYWNoZWQEcG9zAzI1BHNlYwNNZWRpYUF0dFdpZGdldHJvbkFzc2VtYmx5;_ylg=X3oDMTFkcW51ZGliBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3]Federal nullification efforts mounting in states[/url]

If states can ignore federal laws regarding marijuana by enacting laws that legalize marijuana for recreational and medicinal use and ignore illegal immigration laws by enacting sanctuary city polices then states can sure as hell enact laws that ignore federal unconstitutional laws. I would like to see some federal agents rot in prison for kidnapping when ever they attempt to arrest someone for exercising their constitutional rights,

 

[blaxshep]

Didn't this happen during Civil Rights and the National Guard was called in?

The States called in the national guard because certain municipalities were violating civil rights this was not a Fed vs State issue. I believe.

 

[Wiseone]

You very much misunderstood it. It wasn't a call to centralization, it was an understanding that only certain issues like taxes, a common currency, and defense were to be consolidated. See, the founders made a direct point to specifically grant a smaller amount of powers to the federal and repeated it throughout.

EDIT - You are laughably wrong on the supremacy clause, read the document. Anything not in the purview of the federal is an illegal order, and courts getting it wrong does not change that.

According to the law and history it does, maybe not in your opinion though.

 

[iliveonramen]

The States called in the national guard because certain municipalities were violating civil rights this was not a Fed vs State issue. I believe.

Ahhh..yeah you are right.

 

[MMC]

If states can ignore federal laws regarding marijuana by enacting laws that legalize marijuana for recreational and medicinal use and ignore illegal immigration laws by enacting sanctuary city polices then states can sure as hell enact laws that ignore federal unconstitutional laws. I would like to see some federal agents rot in prison for kidnapping when ever they attempt to arrest someone for exercising their constitutional rights,

Same deal for Obamacare and 20 States trying to go around that.....Right? So over Obamacare, marijuana and now gun Rights.

 

[LaMidRighter]

According to the law and history it does, maybe not in your opinion though.

It's not opinion, read the supreme law again, it doesn't favor the misinterpretations. Anything less is apologist, basically saying "oh well, we got away with it". I don't have time for that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

One of the most bizarre theories of the Far Wrong is the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary to engage in exactly the censorship and suppression of religious expression that the First Amendment explicitly forbids.

This is almost up in that same category of Far Wrong bizarreness, that in the face of a federal government that is blatantly violating the Constitution, that it is somehow “unconstitutional” for states to attempt to enforce the Constitution.

 

[Wiseone]

It's not opinion, read the supreme law again, it doesn't favor the misinterpretations. Anything less is apologist, basically saying "oh well, we got away with it". I don't have time for that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

It is an opinion, hell that's why its called a legal opinion and when the court makes a judgement its a "ruling." Heck its just my own opinion that our country should be run this way with the SCOTUS providing both the ultimate ruling on the Constitution and judicial review as well, that happens to be the way it is run right now, but that doesn't mean my opinion that that is the best way isn't an opinion.

Your opinion isn't fact just because its your opinion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Big surprise here. A part of the corrupt federal government consistently rules that the corrupt and blatantly-unconstitutional actions of this corrupt government, are Constitutional, and that it is unconstitutional for states to act against this corruption. The fox demands that we trust it to guard our chickens.

 

[iliveonramen]

One of the most bizarre theories of the Far Wrong is the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary to engage in exactly the censorship and suppression of religious expression that the First Amendment explicitly forbids.

This is almost up in that same category of Far Wrong bizarreness, that in the face of a federal government that is blatantly violating the Constitution, that it is somehow “unconstitutional” for states to attempt to enforce the Constitution.

Well let's be accurate...there's no suppression of religious expression. You can yell anything you want from a street corner, from a pew, in your house, on a street, in a park there's literally millions of square miles where you can practice religious expression. You're really complaining that it can't be a teacher in front of a classroom of 40 or the 10 commandments on the steps of a courthouse.

 

[Anagram]

Big surprise here. A part of the corrupt federal government consistently rules that the corrupt and blatantly-unconstitutional actions of this corrupt government, are Constitutional, and that it is unconstitutional for states to act against this corruption. The fox demands that we trust it to guard our chickens.

It's unfortunate when it happens, but under Article III the supreme court has ultimate authority regarding federal law. I don't agree with attempts by legislatures to trump that.

 

[blaxshep]

Same deal for Obamacare and 20 States trying to go around that.....Right? So over Obamacare, marijuana and now gun Rights.

It just goes to show how out of control the Fed has become.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It is an opinion, hell that's why its called a legal opinion and when the court makes a judgement its a "ruling." Heck its just my own opinion that our country should be run this way with the SCOTUS providing both the ultimate ruling on the Constitution and judicial review as well, that happens to be the way it is run right now, but that doesn't mean my opinion that that is the best way isn't an opinion.

Your opinion isn't fact just because its your opinion.

Okay, not reaching you, or you don't want to be reached. I haven't stated "opinion" but rather facts that anyone attempting to be objective can read for themselves. You are deferring to opinion, and rather bad ones at that.

So here is the hypothetical. A person gets stopped for a traffic violation and officers find a brick of marijuana in the car, leading to arrest and trial. Should the defense argue that this person should not be held accountable for the legal violation because he did it numerous times in the past without being arrested?

- It's not a hypothetical for giggles by the way. If you argue no, he broke the law, then you are using the exact opposite logic you are presenting for blatant unconstitutional law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the states hold the majority of legislative power, it's in every ****ing document one can produce. So your argument then falls to "Well, but the court said......" and when that is proven to be a bad argument you go to "But we did it already, so what's the big deal?". Do you see yet why that fallacy is completely backwards?

 

[LaMidRighter]

It's unfortunate when it happens, but under Article III the supreme court has ultimate authority regarding federal law. I don't agree with attempts by legislatures to trump that.

Nope, the court had the power of nullification under Article III. In Marbury v. Madison the court twistedd it to give themselves Judicial Review.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Just to make one more point about the "x was upheld" argument. One more hypothetical.

- A man commits a serious crime with a ten year statute of limitations. The police tie him directly to the crime 100% in year 11, beyond prosecution.
a) Did the man commit a crime, or because it can't be enforced is it to be considered a legal action?
b) Is that many guilty of the charges without prosecution?
c) If he commits a similar crime, is that crime now legalized by his previous legal pass because of the history of no prosecution for the last crime?

A) Of course he committed a crime, the lack of prosecution does not legality make. (Tie this in with SCOTUS decisions that are obviously not found through any objective viewing of COTUS).
B) Yes, the man is guilty, but there is no punishment.
C) Of course the man will be prosecuted if there is a fresh crime committed with evidence of guilt, a bad action without consequence does not apply to future bad actions. This of course is until we get to court precedent and those who are willing to lay a foundation of new bad law on top of old bad law, it's very easy to sit back and say "Well, the court found it legal" when there is no basis for anyone with two eyes and basic reading and reasoning skills to come to the court's conclusion.

 

[Federalist]

I'm glad to see the people of the several states exercising their sovereignty.

 

[Texmex]

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.

In other words, you got nothing!

 

[Wiseone]

Okay, not reaching you, or you don't want to be reached. I haven't stated "opinion" but rather facts that anyone attempting to be objective can read for themselves. You are deferring to opinion, and rather bad ones at that.

So here is the hypothetical. A person gets stopped for a traffic violation and officers find a brick of marijuana in the car, leading to arrest and trial. Should the defense argue that this person should not be held accountable for the legal violation because he did it numerous times in the past without being arrested?

- It's not a hypothetical for giggles by the way. If you argue no, he broke the law, then you are using the exact opposite logic you are presenting for blatant unconstitutional law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the states hold the majority of legislative power, it's in every ****ing document one can produce. So your argument then falls to "Well, but the court said......" and when that is proven to be a bad argument you go to "But we did it already, so what's the big deal?". Do you see yet why that fallacy is completely backwards?

I completely understand what you're saying, that the last 200 years or so of judical review and other rulings don't matter because they were never right in the first place. Doing something wrong for a long time doesn't make it right.

But you fail to realize that your opinion that its wrong, based on your reading of the Constitution, is just an opinion, its not fact.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I completely understand what you're saying, that the last 200 years or so of judical review and other rulings don't matter because they were never right in the first place. Doing something wrong for a long time doesn't make it right.

But you fail to realize that your opinion that its wrong, based on your reading of the Constitution, is just an opinion, its not fact.

Wow, nice circular reasoning, astounding really. Let's trust the process even though they have a horrible history and no credibility because they aren't always wrong. Seriously, they granted themselves the judicial review, fact, not opinion, they issue rulings that twist the meaning of federal powers to enforce something they agree with despite overwhelming evidence the decisions are wrong, fact, anyone who can read can see it, fact, not opinion.

We're done here.

 

[Wiseone]

Wow, nice circular reasoning, astounding really. Let's trust the process even though they have a horrible history and no credibility because they aren't always wrong. Seriously, they granted themselves the judicial review, fact, not opinion, they issue rulings that twist the meaning of federal powers to enforce something they agree with despite overwhelming evidence the decisions are wrong, fact, anyone who can read can see it, fact, not opinion.

We're done here.

I trust the process because I don't see an alternative and I understand that I won't always get my way.

And judicial review is a required part of the legal system, our legal system could not function with it. Without someone to tell us what the Constitution does and does not say, what it means and does not mean, how it does and does not affect people in their every day lives, then its a meaningless document without teeth. If it cannot be applied and put into action, what good is it?

If the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to rule on the Constitution, who does? The states? So what are you going to do when the Supreme Court of Ohio or the legislator of Ohio declares Obamacare constitutional and the Supreme Court of Texas or the legislator of Texas declares it unconstitutional?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I trust the process because I don't see an alternative and I understand that I won't always get my way.

That is a cop out. You do realize the congress can remove justices right? Well, if these idiots aren't keeping the federal in check it's time to start impeaching. Seriously, every time they issue a decision not based upon constitutional wording they commit perjury just as much as any elected representative, they take an oath to uphold it. And I'm done with this.