• 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!

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

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

First I would say that nullification itself is not going to get much accomplished. The Supremacy Clause is not solely an establishment of Constitutional authority, but refers to "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States" making all laws passed by the federal government supreme to state laws. It could be said that if the laws themselves are unconstitutional that this would not apply, but the Supreme Court has already established that this concern is for federal courts to determine, not for states to decide.

I see the nullification movement more as merely a form of protest. Just as the Civil Rights movement of the 60's saw people voluntarily breaking the law in protest, they were not suddenly allowed to de-segregate just because a lot of people got together and broke the law at the same time. What these nullification efforts are doing is merely beginning the conversation about what the proper scope of government should be, and how we might settle standing issues within our society.

Though I should point out that I disagree with the fundamental belief most often held by libertarians and those who push for nullification, that government is somehow inherently bad. If government is of the people, then it would rationally be said that government is what the people make of it. If government is overreaching it is because we the people are letting the circumstances exist that encourage this overreach. The federal government can provide many benefits to the prosperity of individuals, but in order to do so people have see that potential only as an ends to their own efforts. No one is just going to make government work. We all have to do it.
 
I feel like the quote for this would be "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana
#Civil War Part 2
 
Madison actually says, that it is “a plain principle, founded in common sense” that The States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution of his ............Report on the Virgina resolutions

Madison says:

“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:

“…If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort”.

Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:

“…the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as

“…to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; 10 and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html
 
However, he seems to forget about the system of checks and balances. Each branch of the government checks one another. And if the people are not satisfied with the results, they can elect new officials. Furthermore, if nullification was allowed, what would bind the states together? Also, the federal government derives its power from the states.
 
however, he seems to forget about the system of checks and balances. Each branch of the government checks one another. And if the people are not satisfied with the results, they can elect new officials. Furthermore, if nullification was allowed, what would bind the states together? Also, the federal government derives its power from the states.

during the constitutional convention a proposal was made,, that once a state ratified the constitution, it was bound to the union forever, and if a state tried to leave, the federal government should have to power to stop them by force.

However James Madison stood up and spoke, and rejected the idea, that the new federal government ........could not use force against a state.... the proposal died
 
Regardless, a state can secede if it wants to, but if they are to stay in the Union, they are to abide to the rules of the federal government. Otherwise, there would be no point in having one in the first place. We might as well revert back to the amount of federalism in the Articles of Confederation.
 
Regardless, a state can secede if it wants to, but if they are to stay in the Union, they are to abide to the rules of the federal government. Otherwise, there would be no point in having one in the first place. We might as well revert back to the amount of federalism in the Articles of Confederation.

well i believe the true question asked would be.

if the state are the ones who form the compact, and give the federal government authority in 18 enumerated duties, and the federal government does something that is unconstitutional by going outside of them....how does the government itself, have the authority to bind states, and make them uphold a unconstitutional law since the father of the constitution says that the states are the final authority on a law which they find unconstitutional.
 
If a state doesn't like a law, they can fight to have it repealed. The judicial branch determines the constitutionality of a law. The state can file for a writ of cert if they choose to do so. Also, if you think about it, the judicial branch doesn't have final authority, but the people do, through voting.
 
well i believe the true question asked would be.

if the state are the ones who form the compact, and give the federal government authority in 18 enumerated duties, and the federal government does something that is unconstitutional by going outside of them....how does the government itself, have the authority to bind states, and make them uphold a unconstitutional law since the father of the constitution says that the states are the final authority on a law which they find unconstitutional.
This is the main questions federal apologists have a real problem with, the actual contracting of the Union. I also noticed that someone said Madison "got it wrong", yeah, hate to break it to the guy but Madison was a principle author of the document, kind of makes his opinions important to those ends.
 
If a state doesn't like a law, they can fight to have it repealed. The judicial branch determines the constitutionality of a law. The state can file for a writ of cert if they choose to do so. Also, if you think about it, the judicial branch doesn't have final authority, but the people do, through voting.

well obamacare was passed, and sued by the states from the very beginning, it was put on the fast track to the supreme court, and it took 2 years, can you think how long federal laws, passed and sued would take to hear.
 
This is the main questions federal apologists have a real problem with, the actual contracting of the Union. I also noticed that someone said Madison "got it wrong", yeah, hate to break it to the guy but Madison was a principle author of the document, kind of makes his opinions important to those ends.

Madison lived longer than any other founder, and wrote more on our founding documents.

his letters, federalist papers, and the resolutions, are out right astounding, when read.
 
If a state doesn't like a law, they can fight to have it repealed. The judicial branch determines the constitutionality of a law.
Wrong, the courts were established only to nullify unconstitutional law. Judicial review was a power the courts granted upon themselves in Marbury v. Madison. Ultimately if the federal does not have a power, the only way they can force a state to comply is through monetary coercion, which has been a standard post civil war practice.
The state can file for a writ of cert if they choose to do so.
And they can nullify the law, at the expense of federal dollars.
Also, if you think about it, the judicial branch doesn't have final authority, but the people do, through voting.
Sort of. We are a federal republic, "the people" can elect certain individuals to pass certain laws according to enumerated powers, the federal is supposed to either defer to the states or request permission via the amendment process to gain the powers they sought, no one can argue against an enumerated power, or an amended power, anytime the federal says "yes we can" without that authority then no, they can't, it's unconstitutional.
 
Madison lived longer than any founder, and wrote more on our founding documents.

his letters, federalist papers, and the resolutions, are out right astounding, when read.
Absolutely. People forget that the founders fought harder than even we do about the limits of government, they realized how important it was to get it right from the beginning. The unfortunate thing is that the anti-federalist warnings are proving more true as precedence is set, the key "successes" of political maneuvers are failings against the people. Wilson, FDR, and Nixon have done a lot of damage, but that isn't even the ultimate limit, Lincoln's actions took away secession, FDR weakened the ninth, tenth, and even second, and not to mention the fourth with the Japanese internment camps. People want to hold up politicians, but we've had some real idiots historically who did a lot of damage.
 
Absolutely. People forget that the founders fought harder than even we do about the limits of government, they realized how important it was to get it right from the beginning. The unfortunate thing is that the anti-federalist warnings are proving more true as precedence is set, the key "successes" of political maneuvers are failings against the people. Wilson, FDR, and Nixon have done a lot of damage, but that isn't even the ultimate limit, Lincoln's actions took away secession, FDR weakened the ninth, tenth, and even second, and not to mention the fourth with the Japanese internment camps. People want to hold up politicians, but we've had some real idiots historically who did a lot of damage.


you might be surprised that Lincoln was for state secession , by saying it was legal in 1854
 
you might be surprised that Lincoln was for state secession , by saying it was legal in 1854
For some reason that doesn't surprise me, he was the closest thing to a modern politician in that time. People who uphold him as a great president tend to be shocked from writings of his and also objective accounts of the man, the one good thing he did was the end of slavery which is something he really didn't care about, but his actions past that cost the U.S. quite a few checks and balances.
 
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!:(

What you mean so far away from article three they can't even see it?
 
That would suprise me as he was the president who single handedly killed the tenth.
Lincoln was the kind of politician that would take whatever position benefitted him, it's not very surprising that he would hold to the founding principles until they no longer benefitted him.
 
First I would say that nullification itself is not going to get much accomplished. The Supremacy Clause is not solely an establishment of Constitutional authority, but refers to "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States" making all laws passed by the federal government supreme to state laws. It could be said that if the laws themselves are unconstitutional that this would not apply, but the Supreme Court has already established that this concern is for federal courts to determine, not for states to decide.

I see the nullification movement more as merely a form of protest. Just as the Civil Rights movement of the 60's saw people voluntarily breaking the law in protest, they were not suddenly allowed to de-segregate just because a lot of people got together and broke the law at the same time. What these nullification efforts are doing is merely beginning the conversation about what the proper scope of government should be, and how we might settle standing issues within our society.

Though I should point out that I disagree with the fundamental belief most often held by libertarians and those who push for nullification, that government is somehow inherently bad. If government is of the people, then it would rationally be said that government is what the people make of it. If government is overreaching it is because we the people are letting the circumstances exist that encourage this overreach. The federal government can provide many benefits to the prosperity of individuals, but in order to do so people have see that potential only as an ends to their own efforts. No one is just going to make government work. We all have to do it.


Heya 26. :2wave: Excellent post!

I would tend to agree. Which Boldin is saying somewhat the same thing. Not that there is some legal standing with Nullification of a Federal Law.

Still we are a government of the people. Yet one that is of the Law. Which when removing those in government becomes a process to get them out. As Government will seek to protect its ownself. Using the Law to prevent those trying to use law to remove those from office and or government. So there is a Catch 22.
 
well obamacare was passed, and sued by the states from the very beginning, it was put on the fast track to the supreme court, and it took 2 years, can you think how long federal laws, passed and sued would take to hear.

The length of time doesn't matter. The fact that there is a chance of the law being declared unconstitutional is enough.
 
Wrong, the courts were established only to nullify unconstitutional law.
False. What other important purpose do courts serve? They are a key facet in the criminal justice system.
Judicial review was a power the courts granted upon themselves in Marbury v. Madison.
Yes. That is correct. So there is another option instead of nullification.
Ultimately if the federal does not have a power, the only way they can force a state to comply is through monetary coercion, which has been a standard post civil war practice. And they can nullify the law, at the expense of federal dollars.
Well that's just not right. If a state is to belong the the Union, they ought to abide to the rules set down by the federal government. If they find a law unconstitutional, they can take it to the Supreme Court or work against it in Congress. There are other options besides nullification.
However, there is one other option that ought to be on the table. I am not certain if this is currently an option, but what if there was a national convention of representatives from state legislatures to determine if a law is unconstitutional. So it would sort of be all the states nullifying a law, which is okay, because it is essentially like a temporary Congress repeals a law. The issue has always been if a single state can nullify a law.
The federal government derives its power from the states. The states, in return, must obey the laws the federal government sets. If they disagree with a law, there are methods to get it repealed.
If a single state can nullify laws they don't like, then the federal government becomes useless.
 
The Supremacy Clause says that federal laws trump state laws. If that is not enough argument against the constitutionality of nullification, look at John Marshall's rulings, which argue that federal is above state. Regardless on if a law is unconstitutional, a state has no right to nullify it on that principle. Either they take to Congress, who can repeal any law, or go to the Supreme Court, who has judicial review. Currently, there is no Door #3
 
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.

Actually they are quite Constitutional.
 
The Supremacy Clause says that federal laws trump state laws. If that is not enough argument against the constitutionality of nullification, look at John Marshall's rulings, which argue that federal is above state. Regardless on if a law is unconstitutional, a state has no right to nullify it on that principle. Either they take to Congress, who can repeal any law, or go to the Supreme Court, who has judicial review. Currently, there is no Door #3

No law that is unconstitutional is covered by the "supremacy clause". No other door needed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom