COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Conservative groups called on South Carolina legislators Tuesday to pass a measure that declares the state has the right to ignore any federal law or policies it deems unconstitutional.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
:shock:
Uhh that issue was settled a LONG time ago.
Then the democrats should have nothing to worry about and let it get passed.
US Constitution said:This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding
No...
The issue was settled a LONG time ago in favor of the OPPOSITE viewpoint. It directly contradicts the US Constitution. You can't even cry "judicial activism" on this one, because the US Constitution explicitly spells it out:
That really doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
If its useless to pass this as you claim, then the democrats should have nothing to worry about and go ahead and let this pass. If you have a problem with this bill being passed you must obviously fear that this bill is not as useless or as pointless as you claim it to be.
jamesrage said:The second amendment does not leave much room for interpretation, its pretty clear that it states the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that it shall not be infringed, but that has not stopped the anti-2nd amendment nuts. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Even though the democrats are claiming this will have no practical effect I am sure they will do everything they can to block it, just like the pro-illegals who claim a border fence will not do anything and then try to block it.
SC groups call for passage of states rights bill - Breaking News - The State
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Conservative groups called on South Carolina legislators Tuesday to pass a measure that declares the state has the right to ignore any federal law or policies it deems unconstitutional.
Republican legislators say they want to send a message to Washington that the federal government is overstepping its bounds, from gun control to the No Child Left Behind education accountability law. Democrats contend it's a partisan issue directed at the federal stimulus package, and the measure will have no practical effect.
No...
The issue was settled a LONG time ago in favor of the OPPOSITE viewpoint. It directly contradicts the US Constitution.
Ok, so, they pass the law, and since it's unconstitutional, that law itself allows everyone to ignore it.
Are we paying them to do this?
I'm telling you, the principle of nullification is what caused the Civil War the first time. The vice president, Calhoun, secretly urged South Carolina (hmm, coincidence?) to nullify the Tariff of 1816, which basically was unconstitutional and attempted to subjugate the south to the north by forcing them to buy higher priced manufactured goods from the north instead of the cheaper british goods. It also damaged British ability to by exported cotton from the south, basically economically crushing the south in exchange for filling washington's coffers and making the north rich.
Last time South Carolina pulled this, Civil War broke out not too long after. No good. On the historical scale of "oh ****" flags, it ranks up there with Germany uniting and Russia putting nukes in Cuba.
No...
The issue was settled a LONG time ago in favor of the OPPOSITE viewpoint. It directly contradicts the US Constitution. You can't even cry "judicial activism" on this one, because the US Constitution explicitly spells it out:
What about federal laws that are directly in violation of The Constitution.
If they are not constitutional then it is everyone's duty not to follow it.
That works well in idealogical theory, but it doesn't work well in a functioning federal republic that has a centralized army.
Except that the Constitution is silent as to whom may deem a federal law unconstitutional.No...
The issue was settled a LONG time ago in favor of the OPPOSITE viewpoint. It directly contradicts the US Constitution. You can't even cry "judicial activism" on this one, because the US Constitution explicitly spells it out:
That really doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
The measure being advocated in the South Carolina legislature empowers that state to ignore federal laws it deems unconstitutional. By the standards that have guided judicial review of federal law since Marbury, if an act of Congress is unconstitutional it is null and void, and is of no effect; this also is long settled.Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
However, does this paragraph restrict the province of constitutional review strictly to the courts? Does the judicial duty to "say what the law is" preclude a state from saying what the law is not?It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?