The Constitution and State Nullification laws

For those unfamiliar with Nullification laws, feel free to check out this page:
State Nullification: What Is It? | Liberty Classroom

I just read an article from Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post site:
Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post | Home of the Irate Minority

And here's an excerpt from the article:
***
In some ways I nullified the Executive Branch’s unconstitutional laws and rules when I blew the whistle on the government’s unconstitutional and criminal activities. I was guided by our rights and obligations under the Constitution. Those rights and obligations fully contradicted the ones demanded and imposed by the Federal Government. My oath of citizenship obligated me to protect and defend the Constitution.

All Americans are bound by the same obligation: to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies-foreign and domestic. Thus, when the Federal Government is engaged in acts and operations violating our constitutional laws and rights, when the Federal Government is engaged in unconstitutional acts, when the Federal Government passes and enforces unconstitutional laws-rules-orders, not only the states but all US citizens are duty-bound to resist. For the states, one constitutional way to resist is Nullification.

Think about it: A state can resist and stop NSA’s illegal domestic wiretapping within its territory; a state can put an end to the illegal search and seizure practices by the TSA at its airports; a state can forbid extrajudicial killing and government assassination within its borders … Yes; the states can do all that. They can-constitutionally. Now, who wouldn’t want to live in a state like that? How glaring a paradox is it that those critics of nullification would rather be ‘United’ in an Unconstitutional Federal Government of the United States of America, than ‘United’ with states seeking to preserve constitutional rights?
***

I agree with her. What do others here think?

However many Constitutionally questionable laws are, in fact, imposed at the state level. Gun control and CCW permits, currently hot topics, are prime examples. For example NY just passed extremely harsh "reasonable restrictions" upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What is a Constitutional right in AZ is a crime in NY. How can this be? The bill of rights does not change simply because one lives in another state. While I agree, in priciple, that states have rights, they do not trump the Constitution. Uor only recourse, it seems, is to get through enough layers of the judical system, each still having a "right of refusal" to hear an appeal. Thus if a state passes a law, even if of questionable Constitutional compliance, a federal judge often refuses to hear any appeal simply on the grounds that state law was, in fact, followed.

ttwtt78640 said:

However many Constitutionally questionable laws are, in fact, imposed at the state level. Gun control and CCW permits, currently hot topics, are prime examples. For example NY just passed extremely harsh "reasonable restrictions" upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What is a Constitutional right in AZ is a crime in NY. How can this be? The bill of rights does not change simply because one lives in another state. While I agree, in priciple, that states have rights, they do not trump the Constitution. Uor only recourse, it seems, is to get through enough layers of the judical system, each still having a "right of refusal" to hear an appeal. Thus if a state passes a law, even if of questionable Constitutional compliance, a federal judge often refuses to hear any appeal simply on the grounds that state law was, in fact, followed.

Click to expand...

this is why the federal government has created a contradiction in the law.

the founders did not create the bill of rights to apply to the states, the USSC conferred that is 1833, however later courts , made the BOR apply to the states,

state have there own bill of rights which at one time in America fully mimicked the federal BOR.

but states have CAHNGED their constitution.

NEW YORK BOR.........look for the right to bare arms?

ARTICLE I

Bill of Rights

§1. Rights, privileges and franchise secured; power of legislature to dispense with primary elections in certain cases.

2. Trial by jury; how waived.

3. Freedom of worship; religious liberty.

4. Habeas corpus.

5. Bail; fines; punishments; detention of witnesses.

6. Grand jury; protection of certain enumerated rights; duty of public officers to sign waiver of immunity and give testimony; penalty for refusal.

7. Compensation for taking private property; private roads; drainage of agricultural lands.

8. Freedom of speech and press; criminal prosecutions for libel.

9. Right to assemble and petition; divorce; lotteries; pool-selling and gambling; laws to prevent; pari-mutuel betting on horse races permitted; games of chance, bingo or lotto authorized under certain restrictions.

10. Repealed

11. Equal protection of laws; discrimination in civil rights prohibited.

12. Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions.

13. Repealed

14. Common law and acts of the colonial and state legislatures.

15. Repealed

16. Damages for injuries causing death.

17. Labor not a commodity; hours and wages in public work; right to organize and bargain collectively.

18. Workers' compensation.


State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Good point Phoenyx, if it's possible to actually do that--block data transfers to frustrate the feds? Maybe it would work, but I see it as highly unlikely, but some states are actually talking secession, so who knows?

I would say that a sense of civic duty drives whistleblowers. Their conscience drives them, they know right from wrong. I lived in the Borg for only a few years, and it's quite different.

Henry David said:

Good point Phoenyx, if it's possible to actually do that--block data transfers to frustrate the feds? Maybe it would work, but I see it as highly unlikely, but some states are actually talking secession, so who knows?

I would say that a sense of civic duty drives whistleblowers. Their conscience drives them, they know right from wrong. I lived in the Borg for only a few years, and it's quite different.

Click to expand...

It's possible to do many things. However, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out where this may be headed. Citizens in all 50 states have petitioned to secede:
All 50 States have Petitions to Peacefully Secede - National Libertarian | Examiner.com

The last time 7 states declared that they had seceded from the United States, this is what happened:
American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That time, I'm glad the feds won; regardless of how important abolishing slavery in the U.S. was when the war started, it was finally abolished when it ended and that is certainly a good thing. But the notion that states shouldn't be allowed to secede has never sat well with me, and if the Federal government is becoming a police state, which some certainly allege, then it may be the only way of ending it.

Here's an article on the subject:
What Does a Police State Look Like? Is the US Becoming One? | Slog

And an interview with Sibel Edmonds on the subject:

ernst barkmann said:

this is why the federal government has created a contradiction in the law.

the founders did not create the bill of rights to apply to the states, the USSC conferred that is 1833,

Click to expand...

What contradiction in the law did the federal government create?

Of the Bill of Rights does not Amendment 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 apply to the States?

USSC cannot alter, change, or amend the 1787 Constitution (Article V) and all elected Officials and all Judges take an Oath, or affirm, to support the 1787 Constitution (Article VI, clause 5).

phoenyx said:

For those unfamiliar with Nullification laws, feel free to check out this page:
State Nullification: What Is It? | Liberty Classroom

I just read an article from Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post site:
Sibel Edmonds' Boiling Frogs Post | Home of the Irate Minority

And here's an excerpt from the article:
***
In some ways I nullified the Executive Branch’s unconstitutional laws and rules when I blew the whistle on the government’s unconstitutional and criminal activities. I was guided by our rights and obligations under the Constitution. Those rights and obligations fully contradicted the ones demanded and imposed by the Federal Government. My oath of citizenship obligated me to protect and defend the Constitution.

All Americans are bound by the same obligation: to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies-foreign and domestic. Thus, when the Federal Government is engaged in acts and operations violating our constitutional laws and rights, when the Federal Government is engaged in unconstitutional acts, when the Federal Government passes and enforces unconstitutional laws-rules-orders, not only the states but all US citizens are duty-bound to resist. For the states, one constitutional way to resist is Nullification.

Think about it: A state can resist and stop NSA’s illegal domestic wiretapping within its territory; a state can put an end to the illegal search and seizure practices by the TSA at its airports; a state can forbid extrajudicial killing and government assassination within its borders … Yes; the states can do all that. They can-constitutionally. Now, who wouldn’t want to live in a state like that? How glaring a paradox is it that those critics of nullification would rather be ‘United’ in an Unconstitutional Federal Government of the United States of America, than ‘United’ with states seeking to preserve constitutional rights?
***

I agree with her. What do others here think?

Click to expand...

The paradox is advocating States nullify federal laws enacted by federal Lawmakers that the State's voters elected.

AllanHampton said:

What contradiction in the law did the federal government create?

Of the Bill of Rights does not Amendment 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 apply to the States?

USSC cannot alter, change, or amend the 1787 Constitution (Article V) and all elected Officials and all Judges take an Oath, or affirm, to support the 1787 Constitution (Article VI, clause 5).

Click to expand...

the federal bill of rights was never intended to apply to states, only the federal government, but the federal government with the 14th amendment, which now interprets... rights 1 to 8 of the BOR are rolled up in the 14th, and sought to nullify the 10th, taking away state power.

today, you have people talking about their civil rights of the 14th, however they are not rights, they are civil privileges dispensed by the government, because government cannot create a right and the 14th can be repealed, the BOR cannot.

it sad to see Americans in a court room or even on the street, act as those civil rights / privileges, are great for Americans....they are not.

ernst barkmann said:

the federal bill of rights was never intended to apply to states, only the federal government, but the federal government with the 14th amendment, which now interprets... rights 1 to 8 of the BOR are rolled up in the 14th, and sought to nullify the 10th, taking away state power.

today, you have people talking about their civil rights of the 14th, however they are not rights, they are civil privileges dispensed by the government, because government cannot create a right and the 14th can be repealed, the BOR cannot.

it sad to see Americans in a court room or even on the street, act as those civil rights / privileges, are great for Americans....they are not.

Click to expand...

Yes, nothing great about the unconstitutional 14th. And it is sad that Jurors do a great injustice to themselves, the citizenry, and country by returning an indictment and or guilty verdict under the 14th and or on legislation under the 14th.

ernst barkmann said:

the federal bill of rights was never intended to apply to states, only the federal government, but the federal government with the 14th amendment, which now interprets... rights 1 to 8 of the BOR are rolled up in the 14th, and sought to nullify the 10th, taking away state power.

today, you have people talking about their civil rights of the 14th, however they are not rights, they are civil privileges dispensed by the government, because government cannot create a right and the 14th can be repealed, the BOR cannot.

it sad to see Americans in a court room or even on the street, act as those civil rights / privileges, are great for Americans....they are not.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is sad. The 14th is unconstitutional as well as all legislation under it.