• 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......

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 agree with you when we are talking about enumerated powers but where we get into grey area is when we are talking about laws like gun control that are intended to be state issues under the tenth.
 
The length of time doesn't matter. The fact that there is a chance of the law being declared unconstitutional is enough.

that is true, however if something is not as important as obamacare, it can be law for years, even though its unconstitutional.

Howard dean once said, after he was told a law he wanted was blatantly unconstitutional , stated "well we will let the courts sort that out"
 
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.

This would probably be a step in the right direction.
 
False. What other important purpose do courts serve? They are a key facet in the criminal justice system.
Nope, very much true. You need to do some reading.

Yes. That is correct. So there is another option instead of nullification.
Listen to yourself here. They gave themselves the power, it's not a legit option.

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.
I stopped reading after the first sentence. You have studying to do because you don't know the subject matter. The federal was founded by and gets any powers from the states. If a power isnt' given by the states the federal does not have 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.

Yes, Boldin did basically make my same point. My interpretation of the Catch 22 you point out is two-fold.

The first is that there is an overwhelming opinion that government cannot be "fixed" from the inside. It is believed that politics is run by millionaires and their proteges. If a humble American somehow is elected, their first day in office seems to involve an immediate corruption of their principles for the sake of the millionaires they "defeated" in getting elected. I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion because it removes the fundamental power of popular government from the people. It makes it so that a unified electorate could not break the cycle of politics and that we are forever in service to the will of those in power. Which brings me to my second point.

Tyrants can be deposed and usurpers can be cast out. To do so takes a popular movement based not on a specific philosophical platform, but only requires universal recognition of a failing system. In our case, those who seek to protect themselves are not government, for government is inanimate and cannot act on its own behalf, but those who rule government. Collectively this is the national two-party system. It is a political machine rife with cronyism and patronage. It's primary purpose is not to further a platform for American progress, as is obvious when so many party members do not even recognize their party's official platform, but only to gain and hold on to power.

Our law has been corrupted by those who have bent it to protect themselves, and the only way to fix this is for non-partisan reformers to enter politics and create change. Not in a over-the-top rhetorical way like Obama attempted, but through a gradual cleansing of the system from the local level up.

The Catch 22 that I see is that it would be easier to reform government by entering the system traditionally. But associating oneself with the Democrats or Republicans will immediately cast doubts about your integrity from other reformers, and once the party recognized the threat would likely cast you as a pariah. However, if one stayed true you would have to fight an uphill battle against all of the barriers that party bosses have put in place over the years to prevent any opposition to their hold on power.
 
that is true, however if something is not as important as obamacare, it can be law for years, even though its unconstitutional.

Howard dean once said, after he was told a law he wanted was blatantly unconstitutional , stated "well we will let the courts sort that out"

So are we in agreement?
 
Nope, very much true. You need to do some reading.

Where are cases tried? In court.


I stopped reading after the first sentence. You have studying to do because you don't know the subject matter. The federal was founded by and gets any powers from the states. If a power isnt' given by the states the federal does not have it.

I can tell you stopped reading. I also stated that the federal government derives its power from the states. As for your last sentence, we are nearing the stalemate of loose and strict constructionism.

Let's get back on topic. Nullification? Yes or no? I say no, because of the Supremacy Clause. If a law is unconstitutional, then it is not covered by the Supremacy Clause. That begs the question of who determines the constitutionality of a law. The Supreme Court does under Marbury v. Madison. If found unconstitutional, the law is hereby repealed. Therefore, since all laws are legally constitutional until found otherwise, they are all represented by the Supremacy Clause until they are found unconstitutional. This leaves no room for nullification.

As I said earlier, 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.

And yes, I do expect you to read this reply in it's entirety.
 
Where are cases tried? In court.
When that court has purview yes. Now, where does the Supreme Court have purview over powers not found in the constitution? Can you produce that? I can tell you that there aren't three outcomes to a trial, it's not "Yes, no, or maybe", it's either constitutional and a law is upheld or it's not and the law is upturned. As well these "trials" to borrow your description involve evidence at hand, which is always to be found in the constitution's plain english. There is no "opinion" which twists meanings to uphold a law that is valid.




I can tell you stopped reading. I also stated that the federal government derives its power from the states. As for your last sentence, we are nearing the stalemate of loose and strict constructionism.

Let's get back on topic. Nullification? Yes or no? I say no, because of the Supremacy Clause. If a law is unconstitutional, then it is not covered by the Supremacy Clause. That begs the question of who determines the constitutionality of a law. The Supreme Court does under Marbury v. Madison. If found unconstitutional, the law is hereby repealed. Therefore, since all laws are legally constitutional until found otherwise, they are all represented by the Supremacy Clause until they are found unconstitutional. This leaves no room for nullification.
I already told you, if states are reserved the power they can nullify any law the federal passes outside of their bounds.
 
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
Interesting. I must add that the supremacy clause deals more with the Constitution being supreme, not the federal government as is suggested.
 
An opinion, no. But interpretation, yes.
Same difference. There is no legitimate "interpretation" without a basis in the plain english. I don't care about things that have to use faulty logic or lies to make "fit".
 
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.
And you felt SO strongly about it that you took the time to type up a 5th grade insult in your response to show you wouldnt respond to anything else that was said. Well...you sure showed HIM...
 
Same difference. There is no legitimate "interpretation" without a basis in the plain english. I don't care about things that have to use faulty logic or lies to make "fit".

What if there is sufficient evidence to support more than one interpretation? It would end up as a "I'm right, you're wrong" situation.
 
What if there is sufficient evidence to support more than one interpretation? It would end up as a "I'm right, you're wrong" situation.

In which case, it is up to each one of the sovereign states to make sure that its citizens from an interpretation that would harm its citizens. Ultimately every state is responsible to defend and protect its citizens.
 
In which case, it is up to each one of the sovereign states to make sure that its citizens from an interpretation that would harm its citizens. Ultimately every state is responsible to defend and protect its citizens.

Not necessarily. If the power belongs to the states under the Constitution, then they interpret it themselves. If not, it is up to the federal government to interpret it. If the federal decision does not satisfy some people, they can try and repeal the law or go to the Supreme Court.
 
Not necessarily. If the power belongs to the states under the Constitution, then they interpret it themselves. If not, it is up to the federal government to interpret it. If the federal decision does not satisfy some people, they can try and repeal the law or go to the Supreme Court.

Not sure I agree. The states established the constitution between themselves. They are the principals, and the federal government is the agent. Ultimately, each party to the agreement must decide for itself whether its agent is acting in its best interest. In the cases where it isn't, the state may override the opinions of its agent. Each state is sovereign and ultimately responsible for the general welfare of its citizens.
 
What's the difference?

Simple.

Nullification is an action by the state, which is a part of the government. Nullifying a law would create a conflict of interest within the government. Also, in a state, there are different opinions on a bill. The individuals who are against nullifying a law would be punished for something they had no free will in. They were forced, despite personal beliefs, to go with the state.

Civil disobedience is when AN INDIVIDUAL chooses to disobey the law. They know full well what the consequences are and are willing to take punishment for their transgression.
 
Not sure I agree. The states established the constitution between themselves. They are the principals, and the federal government is the agent. Ultimately, each party to the agreement must decide for itself whether its agent is acting in its best interest. In the cases where it isn't, the state may override the opinions of its agent. Each state is sovereign and ultimately responsible for the general welfare of its citizens.

They are responsible as individual states in some cases. In others, the federal government is responsible. This federal responsibility is really the only thing making the United States United. If each state was wholly responsible, then it would be the Articles of Confederation all over again. The federal government would have no real power. We would be 50 sovereign nations.
 
They are responsible as individual states in some cases. In others, the federal government is responsible. This federal responsibility is really the only thing making the United States United. If each state was wholly responsible, then it would be the Articles of Confederation all over again. The federal government would have no real power. We would be 50 sovereign nations.

I thought we WERE 50 sovereign nations that established a union between themselves.
 
What if there is sufficient evidence to support more than one interpretation? It would end up as a "I'm right, you're wrong" situation.
There isn't. When you combine the constitution, language of the day, and the federalist papers there is no room for interpretation.
 
Back
Top Bottom