Nullification Rises Again

I had this story in my twitter news brief on Friday, but maybe it bears some more discussion. It seems some state legislatures are mulling "nullification" bills targeted at ObamaCare.

Nullification is a long-discredited, but persistent idea that keeps popping up from disgruntled state legislatures. Proponents claim that state legislatures can invalidate federal laws that they deem unconstitutional. The idea is that states, as sovereigns in their own right who joined together to make the United States, are the ultimate arbiters of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and not the Supreme Court.

The theory was first championed by then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson against the Federalists, led by President John Adams. Jefferson and James Madison attempted to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts in Kentucky and Virginia. Their attempt was sharply condemned by several other states. Keep in mind that this was before Marbury v. Madison, so the idea that the Supreme Court would review the constitutionality of acts of Congress hadn't been established yet.

The doctrine came up again in 1832 when South Carolina declared unconstitutional and unenforceable in the state a series of federal tariffs signed into law four years earlier by President John Quincy Adams . The state legislature began military preparations to resist federal enforcement and the federal government responded by passing the United States Force Bill, which was essentially a declaration of war. The Force Bill authorized the seizure of persons and property to enforce the tariff and specifically authorized capture of ports and harbors.

It was a different time back then. Here was President Andrew Jackson's message on South Carolina's nullification ordinance: "[P]lease give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach." Before it could come to military action, South Carolina and Congress worked out a compromise tariff and South Carolina repealed its nullification law.

Of course nullification featured prominently in the national dispute over slavery leading up to the Civil War. The free states would frequently purport to nullify pro-slavery federal laws. The Supreme Court held that these attempts (which were made by state legislatures as well as state courts) did not nullify federal law.

The shoe was on the other foot in the 1950s, when nullification rose again, this time among southern states seeking to ignore Brown v. Board of Education. Of course the Supreme Court shot that down too and, ultimately, the states were forced to comply.

Now some legislators are proposing it again in relation to the healthcare reform law. I understand the urge to overturn ObamaCare and have written many times why I believe it is unconstitutional. But that does not mean that nullification is constitutional. Two wrongs do not make a right. A process already exists, within the letter and spirit of the Constitution, to do away with unconstitutional laws of Congress. President Jackson had it right:

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed

The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:59 PM



Comments

1 Who cares? Do it anyway. Make a judge slap it down.
Politics ain't beanbag.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 22, 2011 07:03 PM (BvBKY)

2 Who cares? Do it anyway.

Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously. The "we must burn the village to save it" mentality simply isn't compatible with that oath.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (XVaFd)

3 Are sanctuary cities, etc, a form of nullification?

Posted by: davidt at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (9Pzy7)

4
I heard something funny the other day.
Congress started giving itself raises in the 80's. And then someone said, "Hey, you know what? There's an amendment in the original Bill of Rights tha tprevented Congress from giving itself a raise that was never ratified by the states.

So some states legislatures in 199? ratified the amendment.

If anyone knows more about this, please fill in the blanks where I messed up.

Vic?

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (/AACO)

5 The doctrine came up again in 1932 when South Carolina declared unconstitutional and unenforceable in the state a series of federal tariffs signed into law four years earlier by President John Quincy Adams .

J. Q. Adams: Time Traveling President! (Might want to fix that, Gabe.) Good points all. Let's do this thing through the courts.

Posted by: joncelli at January 22, 2011 07:07 PM (MLQL2)

6 OK, for argument's sake, the supremacy clause stands supreme. With the17th Amendment in effect,theseveral states need a stronger, faster acting check on extra-constitutional laws promulagted by Congress.This commerce clause shit is getting out of hand.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 22, 2011 07:09 PM (XBM1t)

7 How many legions has the Fed?




...oh, really?

Uh, never mind.

Posted by: nickless at January 22, 2011 07:10 PM (MMC8r)

8 How many legions has the Fed?...oh, really?Uh, never mind.
Posted by: nickless at January 22, 2011 07:10 PM (MMC8r)
They have a new magic lazer that they can put on sharks and stuff too.

Posted by: robtr at January 22, 2011 07:12 PM (hVDig)

9 Are sanctuary cities, etc, a form of nullification?

No.
Why nullify what you can ignore with consent from the Feds?

Posted by: garrett at January 22, 2011 07:12 PM (ltGgD)

10 Nice post, Gabe. Now we need someone to hit the Executive branch.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 07:13 PM (Ghgw8)

11 I doubt the Federal govt will be able to ignore 30+ states nullifying this ObamaCare illegal law. What? are they going to arrest all these citizens for not buying a product they dont want?
IRS agents don't arrest people, the local authorities do, and they will not be arresting people for not paying fines to buy some private product they don't want to buy.
Andrew Jackson went through something similar, in the end, the law was altered and greatly reduced.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-dem at January 22, 2011 07:14 PM (ACkhT)

12 How many state legislatures would pass an Article 5 resolution, with a specific focus on Obamacare right now or on the Commerce Clause, reserving is implementation to matters defined by the states versus the Feds?

Posted by: Jean at January 22, 2011 07:14 PM (CPefM)

13 The Supremacy Clause:
"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."

Doesn't the phrase in bold seem to indicate that federal laws that contravene the constitution - as Obamacare is alleged to be unconstitutional - take said laws outside the ambit of the supremacy clause?

Posted by: real joe at January 22, 2011 07:14 PM (w7Lv+)

14 If it's going to tie things up in courts just a bit longer, or force congress to consider that laws require some amount of willing acceptance or (threat of) force before they pass horribly unpopular ones, then I am all for it.

The illegal immigration crowd has essentially done this anyway, and has gone so far as to very successfully cast the pro-law side as the lawless mob.

If we really believe it is as deeply unconstitutional a law as we say, then we have a duty to use any sort of (legal) delaying/harassment tactic we can to keep it from going into effect.

Stop letting the other side force us to play by a set of rules they refuse to honor.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:14 PM (FrdE0)

15 Man, this Constitution thing is great when it agrees with you.

Posted by: Asscheeks of Saturn at January 22, 2011 07:16 PM (le5qc)

16 Shouldn't 1932 be 1832 instead???

Posted by: DAve at January 22, 2011 07:16 PM (tG4br)

17 Goddammit Malor...I wanted to get through the day without learning anything

Posted by: beedubya at January 22, 2011 07:17 PM (AnTyA)

18 Let's face it - the federal government gets away with massive unconstitutional arrogations of power to itself, because they can - constitution be damned, they have the power to do so. Might makes right.

Posted by: real joe at January 22, 2011 07:18 PM (w7Lv+)

19 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously.
The Constitution or the Constitution-Constitution?
I think these state legislatures are upholding the Constitution. Besides, they're just legislators and legislators can't possibly know what the Constitution means. We have to have our judicial overlords bring it down to us from on high.
And since they haven't ruled on nullification in this specific instance, we have to put the issue before them, burn some incense, kill a sacrifice and wait for their wise pronouncements.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 22, 2011 07:18 PM (BvBKY)

20 Well, one way or another, we have to force the issue of dismantling the behemoth that has become the federal government. Maybe nullification laws are the way to go, maybe they aren't. Maybe it should be an Article 5 convention instead. But we have to do something.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:19 PM (PaSAU)

21 Too much thinking for a saturday night. Time for drinky.

Posted by: real joe at January 22, 2011 07:19 PM (w7Lv+)

22 Goddammit Malor...I wanted to get through the day without learning anythingC
Posted by: beedubya at January 22, 2011 07:17 PM (AnTyA)
You just missed a good opportunity to increase your stupid. Wolf Blitzer just interviewed Dupnik on CNN

Posted by: robtr at January 22, 2011 07:20 PM (hVDig)

23 Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:20 PM (PaSAU)

24 File lawsuits chemjeff and let the supremes tell us once again how to live.

Posted by: robtr at January 22, 2011 07:22 PM (hVDig)

25 Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?
Succeed!

Posted by: Al Sharpton at January 22, 2011 07:23 PM (ltGgD)

26 You just missed a good opportunity to increase your stupid. Wolf Blitzer just interviewed Dupnik on CNN
Posted by: robtr at January 22, 2011 07:20 PM (hVDig)
Didn't the county AG tell him to shut his trap?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 22, 2011 07:23 PM (BvBKY)

27 He's like a white Rev. Wright!

Hitler is pissed that I'mdouche was canned.

Posted by: momma at January 22, 2011 07:26 PM (penCf)

28 Didn't the county AG tell him to shut his trap?

Posted by: AmishDude

Maybe he invoked nullification?

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:26 PM (FrdE0)

29 Guys don't worry. We all know this is bunk. These guys are just hitting O-Care with everything they have until it topples over. It will work. All of this is show. Smart move even when it will get knocked down.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 22, 2011 07:26 PM (c5RQr)

30 Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?
Well, we tried the "fire on Fort Sumter" bit last time and unfortunately, that didn't turn out as well as we would have liked.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 22, 2011 07:26 PM (XBM1t)

31 In the absence of any positive link to the Feds, since the 17th amendment, the States have been reduced to vassal status. A standing Article 5 convention that annually slaps Washington around, probably wouldn't pass muster - but it might be a nice threat.

Another idea - which would ignite a war on Capitol Hill - the House could cut the appropriation for Senate staff to zero, and stipulate that all Senate staff, personal and committee, be appointed and paid for by their respective legislatures. Boehner could threaten to do it if Reid doesn't let key bills to the floor.

Posted by: Jean at January 22, 2011 07:29 PM (CPefM)

32 So sayeth Gabriel "killjoy" Malor.

Good post. I wasn't aware of all the nullification talk going on.

Posted by: diy birth certificate kit at January 22, 2011 07:30 PM (sfHsl)

33 These guys are just hitting O-Care with everything they have until it topples over.
You need to rock it. Like a Vending Machine.

Posted by: garrett at January 22, 2011 07:30 PM (ltGgD)

34 I think the unfunded mandates issue has a bit of nullification built into it.

Posted by: nickless at January 22, 2011 07:31 PM (MMC8r)

35 I agree with Gabe; and Oath is and Oath. But the States can have a grand ol' time making enforcement difficult. The only leverages that the Federal government has are to cut of State fundings (which I agree with as a great pork-busting and earmark-busting measure) or to call out the State militias. (I'll leave you to your own visuals for that one.)

Posted by: ss396 at January 22, 2011 07:31 PM (IfigT)

36 The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states.
When the feds ignore the idea of enumerated powers--also quite explicit--seems likestates shoud befree to nullify. They can use the same rationale feds do when they ignore the limits on their power: legis ex nihilo or something.
Two wrongs do make a right here. As long as the second wrong negates the first.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 07:33 PM (Ghgw8)

37 How exactly should the states react to such a clear abuse of federal power?

A President and Congress that represented the nation as a whole would not have forced such a law until the majority that did not want it. Nor, do they by any means have the Constitutional power to do so.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:33 PM (bgcml)

38 As a matter of far out speculation ...

I've been curious how military loyalties would play out if we pushed on to reprise of the 1860's.... The US military being deeply conservative, can anyone picture Obama holding their loyalty against a small government constitution pushing DeMint/Palin led opposition.

Without getting into the logistics of it all, anyway.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:34 PM (FrdE0)

39 They can use the same rationale feds do when they ignore the limits on their power: legis ex nihilo or something.

rdbrewer, I think the phrase you are looking for is "L'tat, c'est moi"

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:35 PM (PaSAU)

40
Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:34 PM (FrdE0)

urg, let's not even go there please

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:35 PM (PaSAU)

41 Well, we tried the "fire on Fort Sumter" bit last time and unfortunately, that didn't turn out as well as we would have liked.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 22, 2011 07:26 PM (XBM1t)
Attacking the US military because you don't like the candidate just fairly elected president is rather different from refusing to go along with enforcement of an unconstitutional act.
Which actually brings up an interesting point - anyone trying to enforce Obamacare is in violation of any oath they made to uphold the Constitution.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:36 PM (bgcml)

42 What I gleaned from Gabe's post:

1) The Supreme Court has usurped way too much power.

2) Nullification only works if it is backed by the threat of armed resistance by the State against the Federal government. Even then the odds are slim.

3) There is no legal recourse to a Federal government that violates State's rights.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 07:37 PM (6ftzF)

43 28 states are currently suing to overturn obammaocare. 10 more and a convention of state legislatures can pass a Constitutional amendment that ends obammaocare without Congress. And there is no requirement for Congress to sanction the effort. And they can pass a balanced budget amendment and term limits while they are at it.

Congress will NEVER vote to rein in it's own power. The power hungry members of Congress are so drunk on their own quest for money, power and the perks that go with eliteism they will never vote to limit their own power.

Posted by: Fiftycal at January 22, 2011 07:37 PM (Deems)

44 The Supremacy Clause:
"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."

Doesn't the phrase in bold seem to indicate
that federal laws that contravene the constitution - as Obamacare is
alleged to be unconstitutional - take said laws outside the ambit of the
supremacy clause?

Posted by: real joe at January 22, 2011 07:14 PM

Good point, but your logic indicates you are neither a lawyer nor politician.

Unfortunately, the Founders never foresaw the rise to power of a bunch of self-entitled, smug royalty who bend the Constitution to their will with impunity.

The remedies are all unpleasant. There's the Declaration of Independence Way, which would make "Poppin' Fresh's" head explode and lead to unnecessary bloodshed. The Constitution itself doesn't really address tyranny, forbids secession, and I doubt our current courts would come to any different conclusion about nullification than Gabe has.

Faugh.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 07:38 PM (Ulu3i)

45 Most interesting is the "self-nullification" by the feds in their truly insane suit against Arizona, in which the feral government takes the side of the invaders, allied with one of the main invasion promoters and facilitators, Mexico. That's a first in American history ... Unprecedented!

BTW, these rejections of health care mandates by the feral government predate ObamaCare. Arizona had Prop 101 up in 2008 and only missed passage by less than 0.5%.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 22, 2011 07:39 PM (G/MYk)

46 By all means let the courts attempt to stop nullification. You seem to forget that there's the law in ink, the law that actually gets enforced, and the law We the People will tolerate.

But it's not like they have that much legitimacy left anyway.

Posted by: Methos at January 22, 2011 07:40 PM (Ew1k4)

47 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously.

And if Obama claimed the right to appoint state governors, would defying his will in this venue also violate this oath?

The Constitution vests the federal government with certain powers. There can be a fair disagreement as to exactly how far some of those powers go. There is no serious argument that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to appoint governors to the states or force citizens to buy a product.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:40 PM (bgcml)

48 There are a couple states that have laws in relation to marijuana that go something like this: Sure, it's illegal under federal law. But we won't investigate it. We won't turn evidence over to federal investigators. And we won't arrest people on these charges.

That seems a bit nullification-y to me. I don't really have a problem with states going that route.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:40 PM (QgI7g)

49 The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree.

Ah, but there's the rub. The ninth and tenth amendments specifically say that if the constitution doesn't allow it to the federal government, or deny it to the states, it falls to the states. The constitution says NOTHING about the courts being the final arbiter of constitutionality. Strangely enough, that idea comes from Marbury Vs. Madison -- a Supreme Court case!

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 07:41 PM (K1emW)

50 urg, let's not even go there please


Posted by: chemjeff

I'm not suggesting it.... It's just a fascinatingly different dynamic given the changes in the structure of the military in the intervening 150 years and the similarities in the massive divide in the opinions on the proper application of the constitution that exists among the relevant parties in the same timeframe.

Speculate with me, or not. I just find it to be an interesting topic to consider, and I don't think there is a lack of fiction novels that at to some measure do the same.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:42 PM (FrdE0)

51 Attacking the US military because you don't like the candidate just fairly elected president is rather different from refusing to go along with enforcement of an unconstitutional act.
My grandpappy's great grandpappy said the Northern boyshad decided to break the contract between the States, so the Southern boys decided topick up their marbles and form their own country. Twarn't not much to do with Lincoln, exceptin' his election was the last straw. Anyway, that's hows the story goes.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 22, 2011 07:43 PM (XBM1t)

52 Can a State be compelled to enforce Federal Law? In a positive sense, not just in the normal bribery way.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 07:43 PM (S5YRY)

53 The constitution says NOTHING about the courts being the final arbiter
of constitutionality. Strangely enough, that idea comes from Marbury
Vs. Madison -- a Supreme Court case!

As much as I hate about half of SC jurisprudence, I can't imagine things would be better if we all interpreted the document in our own fashion.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:43 PM (QgI7g)

54 Yeah I don't understand how state-level pot decriminalization laws and municipal-level sanctuary city ordinances are okay for supremacy clause purposes but state-level refusal to implement Obamacare is not kosher.

We should just do what the potheads and the illegals did.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:43 PM (PaSAU)

55 Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:40 PM

I guess the real question is: are Osama Obama, Eric Shabazz Holder, wacko liberal courts and Congress the Constitution? Or are they venal, sometimes-treasonous individuals who have violated their own oaths to uphold the Constitution but lie about it?

Individual choice, I guess. I know how I feel about it.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 07:44 PM (Ulu3i)

56 A process already exists, within the letter and spirit of the Constitution, to do away with unconstitutional laws of Congress.
The founders never envisioned the guardians becoming unbound warthogs, though.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 07:45 PM (Ghgw8)

57 My grandpappy's great grandpappy said the Northern boyshad decided to
break the contract between the States, so the Southern boys decided
topick up their marbles and form their own country.

Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:46 PM (bgcml)

58 oh yes they did. They revolted against that very thing. That is one reason they required natural born Americans only be eligible for Precedent.

Posted by: NaturalCitizen at January 22, 2011 07:47 PM (HqFeB)

59 The founders never envisioned the guardians becoming unbound warthogs, though.

I wonder. I suspect the reason they never explicitly spelled out the final arbiter of the rules was they knew this would happen if they did. I think they wanted to maintain the tension between the branches.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:47 PM (QgI7g)

60 I understand the idea of nullification has a strong insurrectionist flavor, and I'm not at all one to advocate insurrection, but on the other hand I'm at a loss as to what states can or should do to stop the federal behemoth.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:47 PM (PaSAU)

61 The remedies are all unpleasant. There's the
Declaration of Independence Way, which would make "Poppin' Fresh's" head
explode and lead to unnecessary bloodshed. Faugh.

Posted by: MrScribbler
Would it? There would still need to be some sort of force authorization. Would the peaceniks on the left go in for that, or would they follow "If they don't want to be our friends, it's their loss" line of argument?Why the assumption that the outcome would have to lead to warfare of any kind? Much like the laws in place, the continued unity of the US is only as lasting as the willingness of the bodies to go along or the ability of (the threat) of force to force compliance.I can see a scenario where neither are present.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:48 PM (FrdE0)

62 As much as I hate about half of SC jurisprudence, I
can't imagine things would be better if we all interpreted the document
in our own fashion.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:43 PM (QgI7g)
How so? Liberal "constitutionality" would likely be far more restrained if elected officials faced the voters' wrath over their interpretations every 2, 4 or 6 years.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:48 PM (bgcml)

63 And the "the founders never envisioned..." arguments are baloney, it seems to me, because those are the exact same ones the left uses on us whenever they want to foist upon the nation their latest and greatest socialist scheme. "The founders never envisioned the Internet, so the state should regulate it... to cut down on 'hate speech'...." etc.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:49 PM (PaSAU)

64 Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:46 PM (bgcml)
Not in the Civil War Special Edition.

Posted by: Greedo at January 22, 2011 07:49 PM (BvBKY)

65 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and
I take oaths very seriously.


Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (XVaFd)

These states are taking their oaths to the US Constitution even more seriously. Just because the federal government does something doesn't MAKE IT Constitutional. They can try to install a 12 year old as President. That doesn't mean that that move is Constitutional, in any way.

You might think that example is too simplistic, but we have the federal government suing Arizona in order to stop Arizona from following federal law, which allows for the alerting of the federal government to check if people are illegal and deal with them if found so. The federal govenrment is actually arguing that it doesn't want that enforced. The federal government isn't allow to pick which of its laws are enforceable. If they have a problem with a law, they need to change it, not ignore it and demand that the states violate the US Constitution and ignore it, too. I mean, that's just crazy.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 22, 2011 07:50 PM (G/MYk)

66 So, if Obama re-institutes the Alien and Sedition Acts making it illegal to criticize him, and the Supremes say "OK!", are the states supposed to just sit there and take it?

The founders never intended nine government lawyers to be the final say on the Constitution. The Court is a branch of the federal government, and allowing the federal government to define its own boundaries is idiotic. As you may have noticed, IT HAS NOT WORKED. Why should we be surprised when the federal government rules that it can do what it wants to?

You need to read Federalist 33 and then read Tom Woods' excellent book on nullification.

Posted by: Citizen Snips at January 22, 2011 07:50 PM (Omwhl)

67 Chemjeff, check out my post on the Rule of Law.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 07:50 PM (Ghgw8)

68 I'm at a loss as to what states can or should do to stop the federal behemoth.
Think of all of these remedies as complaining to the ref. You're working to overturn the next call that goes against you, not the current one.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 22, 2011 07:51 PM (BvBKY)

69 All of our recourses for dealing with a federal branch that has gone out of control is to appeal to another branch or have an election. But all 3 branches are out of control. Also elections have been corrupted by massive fraud. We've also created a huge portion population that are imbeciles and rely on a unconstitutional government to survive. We have maybe an election or two to fix things otherwise we are fucked. And we have no legal recourse to unfuck ourselves.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 07:51 PM (6ftzF)

70 57
My grandpappy's great grandpappy said the Northern boyshad decided to
break the contract between the States, so the Southern boys decided
topick up their marbles and form their own country.

Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.


Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:46 PM (bgcml)
Doesn't matter. To be judged kindly you have to win.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:51 PM (QgI7g)

71 If the Supremes would simply do their job and not let the other two branches run amok, there'd be no problem.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 07:52 PM (Ghgw8)

72 How so? Liberal "constitutionality" would likely be far more restrained
if elected officials faced the voters' wrath over their interpretations
every 2, 4 or 6 years.

How would you resolve the numerous cases where state courts (or legislators) had conflicting rulings?

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:53 PM (QgI7g)

73 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (XVaFd)

But the government is no longer constitutional.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 07:53 PM (6ftzF)

74 "Nullification Rises Again". Interesting title to your post.

Posted by: Dr Spank at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (1fB+3)

75 De jure, Gabriel, you're correct. De facto, if 37 states were to pass essentially identical nullification bills, we would very quickly see Congress pass a repeal bill, and the president would sign it. The threat of a much wider rebellion against federal overreach would be too great even for an Obama to ignore.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (FeYbR)

76 Yeah, we took an oath to defend the Constitution too!

Posted by: The 2008-2010 Congress at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (o2QOm)

77 As much as I hate about half of SC jurisprudence, I can't imagine things would be better if we all interpreted the document in our own fashion.


The constitution doesn't need interpretation. It needs to be applied. It is not being applied now. It is being willfully ignored, and I'll be damned to the deepest depths of Hell before I let Gabe or anyone else tell me we have no recourse.

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (K1emW)

78 We need 34 States to call for an Article 5 convention. And 38 to pass any ammendments.

Just sayin'

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 07:55 PM (S5YRY)

79 You need to rock it. Like a Vending Machine.

Now THAT my friend is a damn good analogy...what you said

Posted by: NfromNC at January 22, 2011 07:55 PM (kR57Q)

80 the continued unity of the US is
only as lasting as the willingness of the bodies to go along or the
ability of (the threat) of force to force compliance.I can see a scenario where neither are present.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:48 PM

Well, I was trying to suggest that I don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government (which, in fact, I absolutely do not).

But I sometimes wonder what the official reaction would be if thousands of citizens descended on Congress and the White House and proceeded to make mass citizens' arrests. The Capitol Police would resist (not wanting to lose their generally cushy gigs) and the Secret Service would (rightly) try to prevent physical harm coming to the Mohammedan Mouthpiece.

But I believe the doctrine of citizen's arrest is valid.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 07:55 PM (Ulu3i)

81 And the "the founders never envisioned..." arguments are baloney

Indeed, there was plenty of secession talk in the early Republic. New England, in fact, considered it in the early 1800s.

Frankly, when faced with such overwhelming opposition to its regional party's policies - Democrat elected officials should temper their goals.

Representative government is not supposed to be a game, where if you can trick 52% of the population you can do whatever the hell you want until the next election.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:55 PM (bgcml)

82 75

De jure, Gabriel, you're correct. De facto, if 37
states were to pass essentially identical nullification bills, we would
very quickly see Congress pass a repeal bill, and the president would
sign it. The threat of a much wider rebellion against federal overreach
would be too great even for an Obama to ignore.



Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (FeYbR)
I doubt that's true. These people have a lot of faults, but an overabundance of humility isn't one of them.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:55 PM (QgI7g)

83 Would love to stay and debate further, but daughter is in HS play of Little Shop of Horrors and I feel a need to go see her perform. Be back later.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 22, 2011 07:56 PM (XBM1t)

84 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously. The "we must burn the village to save it" mentality simply isn't compatible with that oath.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (XVaFd)



And, at the risk of being crass, there is nothing constitutional about judicial review. It was established by Marbury Vs. Madison, and upholding, protecting, and defending the constitution is not predicated on one's support of judicial review.

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 07:56 PM (K1emW)

85 The constitution says NOTHING about the courts being the final arbiter
of constitutionality.

They aren't. The power to amend the Constitution is the final arbiter. Further, the ability to impeach and toss out federal judges and justices is a power in between. And Congress can just pass another bill just like it, the Executive can enforce it, and the Court can't do much but mope around. The judiciary can only enforce its will by maintaining its own credibility.

Each branch (legislative, executive, judicial, states) is able to break the Constitutional compact on its own. You have to look at the detail of who broke with the Constitution first. The conservative states are pretty late to this party, on the conservative side. The libs have been doing this from all over the states and the federal government and now conservative states are finally saying, "Enough!".

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 22, 2011 07:56 PM (G/MYk)

86 rdbrewer, I read your post, and I agree with it. I'm still though at a loss as to what should be done.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:56 PM (PaSAU)

87 My only problem with a convention at this point is can we trust the states to do it right?

Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 07:57 PM (2k/Dg)

88 87 My only problem with a convention at this point is can we trust the states to do it right?
Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 07:57 PM (2k/Dg)

As long as the states follow the procedure outlined in Article V, there's no way for them to get it wrong. It's the ultimate expression of "the will of the people."

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 07:58 PM (K1emW)

89 The constitution doesn't need interpretation. It needs to be applied.
It is not being applied now. It is being willfully ignored, and I'll be
damned to the deepest depths of Hell before I let Gabe or anyone else
tell me we have no recourse.

It's not that simple, once you delve into the details. There are tons and tons of cases where rights are in conflict and have to be weighed against each other. Hell, with the 14th amendment it's almost every case.

And don't tell me you can apply the commerce clause in concrete cases purely by reading the text.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:58 PM (QgI7g)

90 I am too young to know of this first hand, so maybe some of the more seasoned morons can put me some knowledge: when it looked like Nixon was going to be impeached, were there states passing resolutions and demanding that he resign? What did they do then?

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 07:58 PM (PaSAU)

91 Any attempt to drag the Civil War into this discussion is stupid. Sick and tired of being raped economically by politically-connected business interests in the North, the South declared independence; it didn't nullify anything.

Posted by: Citizen Snips at January 22, 2011 07:59 PM (Omwhl)

92 Think of all of these remedies as complaining to the ref.


And believe me, complaining to a ref will NEVER get a call changed. To win, we have to play according to the laws of the game.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:00 PM (/izg2)

93 Well, I didn't mean in terms of procedure, but of the resulting content. We got a lot of state seats last election, did it get enough conservatives in those seats to pull something like this off without sabotage by the Dems?

Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 08:00 PM (2k/Dg)

94 Maybe nullification is long-discredited, Gabe. I respect your superior knowledge in this area. But if the majority of the states are so dead-set against this, it's not a bad place to start. Something has to be done, and quickly. He just doesn't want to stop and so we the people must stop him.

Posted by: Peaches at January 22, 2011 08:00 PM (zxpIo)

95 CJ, I was just thinking the Founders never envisioned the kind of creativity that gave us such a powerful, intrusive federal government.
What will the Supremes do? Will they stop pretending the 10th doesn't exist? Will they do their jobs and protect and uphold the Constitution?

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 08:00 PM (Ghgw8)

96 It's not that simple, once you delve into the details. There are tons and tons of cases where rights are in conflict and have to be weighed against each other. Hell, with the 14th amendment it's almost every case.

And don't tell me you can apply the commerce clause in concrete cases purely by reading the text.
Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:58 PM (QgI7g)

Actually, you can. To "regulate" commerce means to make it regular. The commerce clause specifically speaks to resolving disputes between the states, mostly as concerns taxation. It's so we have one nation and not a confederation of fifty separate ones, you know?

We've been hoodwinked by the libs for so long since we've been fooled into thinking that things are much more complex than they really are.

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:01 PM (K1emW)

97 What will the Supremes do? Will they stop pretending the 10th doesn't
exist? Will they do their jobs and protect and uphold the Constitution?

How can they, at this point? It would become obvious they've been working the important cases backwards all along.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 08:02 PM (QgI7g)

98 A constitutional scholar = someone who's spent more time studying bogus court cases supposedly about the constitution, than the actual text of the constitution itself.

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:03 PM (K1emW)

99 We've been hoodwinked by the libs for so long since we've been fooled into thinking that things are much more complex than they really are.
Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:01 PM (K1emW)
I like to call that the "social science effect."

Posted by: AmishDude at January 22, 2011 08:03 PM (BvBKY)

100 It's almost like we need an amendment to reaffirm the 10th Amendment.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 08:04 PM (Ghgw8)

101
How would you resolve the numerous cases where state courts (or legislators) had conflicting rulings?

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:53 PM (QgI7g)
What *specific* issue are we discussing? The Constitution is a clear document, far more so for the states as there are precious few powers given to the federal government to begin with.Of course the fundamental irony is that the Supreme Court does not decide Constitutionality as it stands now anyway. The Supreme Court makes a political decision on each issue that comes before it and acts as a legislature itself. True, a minority does give serious consideration to the text of the Constitution - but there has not been a majority actually doing so in my lifetime.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:04 PM (bgcml)

102 if 37 states were to pass essentially identical nullification bills, we
would very quickly see Congress pass a repeal bill, and the president
would sign it.
I think if there were 37 state legislatures ready to do that, the make-up of congress would probably be such that it would be able to repeal it anyway.

But I sometimes wonder what the official reaction would be if thousands
of citizens descended on Congress and the White House and proceeded to
make mass citizens' arrests.
I'll bet that would get messy quick, and I wouldn't want the libs to think they can do the same thing.

I'm really suggesting just the opposite. What if a state (and it's citizens) just walked away)? No protests. No Arrests. Just escort federal agents to the nearest state border or very politely ask them to leave.

Absent a Federal invasion, what could compel the state to rejoin the Union? And does anyone think force would really be brought to bear? Would any of us be bothered if CA did it?

I don't, but that seems to be the underlying assumption.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 08:04 PM (FrdE0)

103 To win, we have to play according to the laws of the game.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:00 PM (/izg2)

If you actually believe that, you watch too many bad movies.

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:04 PM (lT0LC)

104 Date typo fixed, thanks. Loose shit.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 22, 2011 08:06 PM (PhIhd)

105 98 A constitutional scholar = someone who's spent more time studying bogus court cases supposedly about the constitution, than the actual text of the constitution itself.
Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:03 PM (K1emW)
Nobody else thinks this is funny, but I do: Barack Obama was a constitutional scholar in the way that Willie Sutton was a banking regulator.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 22, 2011 08:06 PM (BvBKY)

106 obama has shown no respect for the Constitution. It is an impediment to him. Look how he forced Hell Care against the will of the people. He isn't bound by law, honor or precedent and we wring our hands wondering how to stop his madness.
He needs a Founding Fathers style bitch slapping.
All the lefty progs do.

Posted by: nyc redneck at January 22, 2011 08:07 PM (WjMrP)

107
Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:04 PM (lT0LC)

Laws of the Game = US Constitution.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:07 PM (/izg2)

108 Laws of the Game = US Constitution.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:07 PM (/izg2)

If the US Constitution is a rulebook, then we might as well be trying to play basketball on a Football gridiron. The whole goddam problem is that NO ONE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES ANYMORE!

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:08 PM (K1emW)

109 I think this whole "nullification" thing is being taken too seriously. While it may be completely unconstitutional, it's useful in emphasizing that most Americans do not support Obamacare, especially to 9 justices who will be the ultimate arbiters of it's fate.

Posted by: Chris R at January 22, 2011 08:08 PM (QiNmA)

110 I like to cite the case of Cee-Lo Greene Vs. Golddigger in situations like this.

Posted by: nickless at January 22, 2011 08:09 PM (MMC8r)

111 109 I think this whole "nullification" thing is being taken too seriously. While it may be completely unconstitutional, it's useful in emphasizing that most Americans do not support Obamacare, especially to 9 justices who will be the ultimate arbiters of it's fate.

Posted by: Chris R at January 22, 2011 08:08 PM (QiNmA)

Enlighten me. Precisely where does the constitution forbid nullification?

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:09 PM (K1emW)

112 It's almost like we need an amendment to reaffirm the 10th Amendment.

No shit. Have they snuck in a right-to-impose-healthcare Amendment that I missed? One about Internet ID numbers? One about giving my tax dollars to citizens of other countries who are here in violation of federal law?

If the courts don't bend over backwards to accord the states their Constitutional rights on Obamacare, then I'm actually fine with insurrection, secession, whatever it takes. I will not have that jackboot on my neck. I will go down fighting.

Posted by: Peaches at January 22, 2011 08:09 PM (zxpIo)

113 We are trying to follow the rules, they don't.

Posted by: nyc redneck at January 22, 2011 08:10 PM (WjMrP)

114 Laws of the Game = US Constitution.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:07 PM (/izg2)

How so?

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:10 PM (lT0LC)

115 On the Supreme Court deciding this: If framed right, pushing this to the SC could put them in a position of having to declare, in no uncertain terms, the death of limited government as a potential interpretation of the constitution. 10th amendment arguments brought by several states, alongside nuliffication and the other oft discussed principles would be much harder to dodge in their opinion than the smaller cases that have come their way.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (FrdE0)

116 Nullification was used by abolitionists in Wisconsin to resist the Fugitive Slave laws.

Posted by: rae4palin at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (4YCgw)

117 The whole goddam problem is that NO ONE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES ANYMORE!


I don't disagree with this. But if we decide to just make shit up as we go along instead of getting back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution (yeah I'm racist), wouldn't that make us no better than the other side?

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)

118 Oh, and were is the fucking Amendment that guarantees anyone who manages to be here a shitty, yet ridiculously expensive, public education? Why, again, am I paying for this shit?

Posted by: Peaches at January 22, 2011 08:12 PM (zxpIo)

119 They should just deem it as passed.

Posted by: Nancy P losi at January 22, 2011 08:13 PM (0a4fB)

120 Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)

We are making shit up? Huh.

Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 08:13 PM (2k/Dg)

121 I don't disagree with this. But if we decide to just make shit up as we go along instead of getting back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution (yeah I'm racist), wouldn't that make us no better than the other side?

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)

Good people can certainly disagree on where that line is crossed, but I believe that I have no legal or moral obligation to follow a law that I believe is unconstitutional. See? Simplicity works!

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:13 PM (K1emW)

122 NC Ref, they are making it up. Witness Kelo. Witness the "war on drugs." I could go on, I won't bore you. You are not stupid.

I'll look to the Declaration of Independence for guidance about what to to about overbearing governments, once the other nonviolent methods are exhausted.

We are farther toward one man, one vote, one time than most will admit to themselves. Executive orders? Which article authorizes those as law?

Posted by: MarkD at January 22, 2011 08:14 PM (0Jy1K)

123 Flash - ah - he'll save ev'ry one of usJust a man with a man's courageHe knows nothing but a manBut he can never failNo one but the pure in heartMay find the golden grail oh oh oh oh

Posted by: Freddie Mercury at January 22, 2011 08:14 PM (tvs2p)

124 On the Supreme Court deciding this: If framed right, pushing this to the
SC could put them in a position of having to declare, in no uncertain
terms, the death of limited government as a potential interpretation of
the constitution.

5 of the 9 do not agree that there are ultimately any limitations on the authority of the US government. The other four may or many not., who knows? Though the notion that 5 judges get to decide if the Constitution means what the Constitution says is patently absurd.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:14 PM (bgcml)

125 That is the problem, the GOP tries to play within the rules, and the left NEVER does. You cant win against a cheating, lying adversary without beating him at his own game. The threat of actually fighting back would have the neolibs in diapers. The game of politics is largely bluff-n-stuff, which creates the pressure necessary to change or repeal legislation. Message to GOP, grow some junk or get out of the game.


Posted by: NaturalCitizen at January 22, 2011 08:14 PM (HqFeB)

126 wouldn't that make us no better than the other side?

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)

No, because the Constitution is not the Moral Law. It's just a contract between the several states and the federal government. Also, as a non-member of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the Presidency the Constitution places no restrictions on my behaviour.

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:15 PM (lT0LC)

127 Just call them sanctuary states. Problem solved. Their game, their rules.

Posted by: MarkD at January 22, 2011 08:15 PM (0Jy1K)

128 I'd referyou to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has a LIMITED number of enumerated powers (health care isn't one of them)and, per the 9th and10th Amendments, all other powers are reserved to the States or the People, Article VI notwithstanding.

Posted by: mgmorris at January 22, 2011 08:15 PM (cE/6K)

129 We're boned.One way or another.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 08:16 PM (5Y1gW)

130 We're boned.One way or another.

Yeah. If its coming, let it come soon, while I still have the strength.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (S5YRY)

131 5 of the 9 do not agree that there are ultimately any limitations on the
authority of the US government. The other four may or many not., who
knows?

I agree. But putting them in a position where they have to very clearly state it for everyone could be fruitful too. I mean, how much credibility can they have with anyone as interpreters of the constitution if they have to very explicitly declare it moot?

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (FrdE0)

132
I don't disagree with this. But if we decide to just make shit up as we
go along instead of getting back to a strict interpretation of the
Constitution (yeah I'm racist), wouldn't that make us no better than the
other side?



Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)


Why, exactly, should we be at all concerned about being "better" then the other side? Is it not better to not be pure and win? Preciously because winning - restoring the country to Constitutionality - is of such value?


Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (bgcml)

133 How so?

If we don't follow established procedures to make amendments to the law, what good is the Constitution in the first place? And that goes for enforcing existing laws as well. The difficulty, of course, is the obvious point everyone is making...that the Democrats don't follow the law anyway, or their judges "interpret" it to mean whatever is convenient instead of according to US law. Just because the other side cheats doesn't mean that the only way for us to win is to cheat as well.



Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (/izg2)

134 Good people can certainly disagree on where that line is crossed, but I
believe that I have no legal or moral obligation to follow a law that I
believe is unconstitutional.

That's what Bradley Manning thought too. You may not have a moral obligation to follow a law, but the legal obligation you ignore at your own peril.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (QgI7g)

135 Is this the same section of the constitution that hides the little-known codicil of double secret probabtion?

Posted by: Eric Stratton, Pre-Law at January 22, 2011 08:19 PM (Ys0KI)

136 Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (/izg2)

How exactly are we cheating? You are saying things, but I don't see any evidence for them.

Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 08:19 PM (2k/Dg)

137 the Constitution places no restrictions on my behaviour.

Can't commit treason comes to mind. And I would argue that the activities of the Obama Administration to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws is treasonous.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:21 PM (/izg2)

138 But if we decide to just make shit up as we go along
instead of getting back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution
(yeah I'm racist), wouldn't that make us no better than the other side?

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)
States, in the rejection of federal health care mandates, are adhering to the Constitution. Even the leftists in the federal government have openly admitted that ObamaCare is un-Constitutional. They argued during forced, and illegal and institution-killing, passage of it that it was definitely not a tax. For one of the mandate cases by the states, they now argue that it is a tax. That is enough obvious evidence that they are just lying their way through this whole thing. I mean, what more does anyone need?

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 22, 2011 08:21 PM (G/MYk)

139 How exactly are we cheating?

We're not. I didn't mean to imply that we are. But I get the impression that a couple of posts came close to advocating that since we should "the other side is doing it already." If I'm wrong, my bad.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:23 PM (/izg2)

140 Emanations, penumbra, gnarfle....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: Overlord Justice Kennedy of Mars at January 22, 2011 08:23 PM (MMC8r)

141 Nullification begins tomorrow at 3 when Rodgers will be nullifried by da BEARS defense thus loosing by no less than 6

Enjoy those cheese curds

Posted by: melvin at January 22, 2011 08:24 PM (3OCZw)

142 States, in the rejection of federal health care mandates, are adhering to the Constitution.

Says you. And the lefties say sanctuary cities are adhering to the constitution. And that twice weekly bubble baths for Gitmo detainees are specified in the constitution.

You don't want to go down that road. Because everyone else will too.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 08:25 PM (QgI7g)

143 Is it not better to not be pure and win? Preciously
because winning - restoring the country to Constitutionality - is of
such value?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (bgcml)

So we should violate the letter AND spirit of the Constitution to restore the Constitution? I don't get that argument.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:26 PM (/izg2)

144 "Nullification is a long-discredited, but persistent idea that keeps popping up from disgruntled state legislatures."

If we had even ONE Senator from each state appointed by the state legislatures, such laws probably wouldn't pass in the first place.


Posted by: crosspatch at January 22, 2011 08:26 PM (ZbLJZ)

145 One good thing abt. all this varied effort to kill Hell care, is it will keep the focus on it. This will force obama and his skells to keep defending it, reminding us how good it tasted when they rammed it down our throats. That is not going to work. We are seeing the negative effects of it now. Just as we predicted.

Posted by: nyc redneck at January 22, 2011 08:29 PM (WjMrP)

146 I'm sick of this debate. The constitution does not require interpretation, merely application, the Left's twisting of it notwithstanding.

This is an open question for everyone: where is your personal threshold that, once crossed by the tyrants in DC, you'll be willing to actually fight for your rights. And by that I mean everything up to and including open insurrection.

Posted by: Thresher at January 22, 2011 08:29 PM (DG56/)

147 Who says Marbury is constitutional? SCOTUS? Why do they get to decide? Oh yeah, because of Marbury. It's a "because I said so argument", which isn't all that persuasive.

Posted by: gm at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM (HXzaq)

148 Can't commit treason comes to mind. And I would argue that the activities of the Obama Administration to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws is treasonous.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:21 PM (/izg2)

No, it does not. The Constitution specifically limits what the government is allowed to call treason & that's about the extent of it. Look it up.

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM (lT0LC)

149 Says you. And the lefties say sanctuary cities are adhering to the
constitution. And that twice weekly bubble baths for Gitmo detainees
are specified in the constitution.
False moral equivalencies are just that.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM (bgcml)

150 and I'll be damned to the deepest depths of Hell before I let Gabe or anyone else tell me we have no recourse.

Posted by: Gryph

Um, did you read his post? He didn't write that conservatives have no recourse.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM (h2t8r)

151
147

I crossed that line back when they shoved the TARP through. No joke.

Posted by: Peaches at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM (zxpIo)

152 Thresher - absolutely right. And I'm not sure exactly where the big government tyrants will cross my personal line, but its a lot closer now then I ever would have believed.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM (/izg2)

153 "Two wrongs don't make a right."
This begs the question of whether nullification is wrong when it follows the other wrong. Here's the second "wrong" is not a wrong.
Otherwise, you can pretty much abandon, say,the idea of overturning bad precedent.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 08:33 PM (Ghgw8)

154 Will do, Dread.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:33 PM (/izg2)

155 --Says you.

Indeed.

--And the lefties say sanctuary cities are
adhering to the constitution.

Not really. They usually appeal to phony moral arguments. When that doesn't work, they usually pull out bullshit economic arguments.

--And that twice weekly bubble baths for
Gitmo detainees are specified in the constitution.You don't want to go down that road. Because everyone else will too.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 08:25 PM (QgI7g)
Look, someone can say that the word "building" means a small pebble. I can't stop them. But no one with a brain would take that seriously. Lefties use specious Constitutional arguments and everyone knows they're specious. They really base their arguments on attempted appeals to morals, emotions, and international agreements. History is never on their side, which is why they love doing such unprecedented things. They celebrate this aspect, themselves.

Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 22, 2011 08:34 PM (G/MYk)

156 So we should violate the letter AND spirit of the Constitution to restore the Constitution? I don't get that argument.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:26 PM (/izg2)

It doesn't matter. The American Revolution wasn't Constitutional, and yet it lead to the Constitution. Wrap your brain around that one.

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:35 PM (lT0LC)

157 So we should violate the letter AND spirit of the Constitution to restore the Constitution? I don't get that argument.


Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:26 PM (/izg2)
What exactly has anyone in this thread proposed that would violate the Constitution?On the other hand, no citizen or government official should feel bound to enforce a unconstitutional law, "cheating" or not.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:36 PM (bgcml)

158 Thank God that the Founders offered the monarchy to George Washington and not John Marshall. That power hunger megalomaniac would jumped at the chance to be an authoritarian.

Posted by: gm at January 22, 2011 08:36 PM (HXzaq)

159 The Constitution means what people think it means, period. And due to idiots like you, it means bupkis. Quoting Jackson? You got to be kidding. He thought it meant whatever HE wanted it to mean. He's the guy who told the Supremes to shove it. And this is your authority?

But it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean what you think it does and it doesn't mean what I think it does. It means what 50%+1 of the morons in this country think it means. Even worse, it means what 5 of 9 assholes on the Court say it means. Nothing matters. At least, facts and logic don't matter.

Posted by: Randall Hoven at January 22, 2011 08:36 PM (zQupx)

160 This is an open question for everyone: where is your
personal threshold that, once crossed by the tyrants in DC, you'll be
willing to actually fight for your rights. And by that I mean everything
up to and including open insurrection.

Posted by: Thresher at January 22, 2011 08:29 PM (DG56/)
I notice that none of the opponents of this idea touched my example about of how they would respond if Obama claimed the right to appoint State governors. Is it different in scope then Obamacare? Sure. Is it different in kind? No.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:37 PM (bgcml)

161 Oh yeah, because of Marbury. It's a "because I said so argument", which isn't all that persuasive.

Posted by: gm

No, it's more a question that if the courts aren't supposed to play a role then why the fuck did the founders include it in the fucking Constitution? For shits and giggles? To determine the legality of designated hitters? To settle NFL free-agency?

Oh, oh, I know, to kick fan-favorites off of American Idol. That's it.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:37 PM (h2t8r)

162 Gabe,

Have you bothered reading Thomas woods' book on nullification?

In light of the actual evidence your argument simply falls flat. You ultimately claim that the rule of law is the same as the rule of men. Force and threats of force merely show how drunk and corrupt the federal government under Jackson and Lincoln were.

The supreme court, a branch of the federal government, decides that only the federal government can judge thE federal government, absent any actual constitutional support to that effect. It's not just wrong, it's patently absurd on it's face.

We both know that, had such an understanding been held by any of the founders or original ratifiers the constitution never would have been ratified.

Please take the time to research the subject, by consulting woods' book, instead of repeating the anti-reason might-makes-right rhetoric you were spoon fed by liberal law professors.

The constitution makes no sense without nullification, and makes no sense when the federal government is invested with unlimited powers.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 08:40 PM (Rq4oF)

163 The gist of Gabe's post is that there comes a point at which we must concede defeat and stop fighting.

Posted by: The War

You know, you really should get over the fact that Gabe ran over your dog. I mean come on, it was just a dog, right?

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:40 PM (h2t8r)

164 >>>No, it's more a question that if the courts aren't supposed to play a role then why the fuck did the founders include it in the fucking Constitution?

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:37 PM (h2t8r)

Federal courts only decide constitutional questions? SCOTUS is the only court provided for by the constitution.

Posted by: gm at January 22, 2011 08:40 PM (HXzaq)

165 The American Revolution wasn't Constitutional.

No, but Jefferson set forth the reasons for the Revolution in the Declaration of Independance...after which the Constitution was written.

And no specific violations of the Constitution were advocated...I'm sure...but the gist of some posts seemed TO ME to argue that we need to fight the Democrats on their level...which is cheating and twisting the Constitution to their needs instead of reading the words as they are written. If I was mistaken...again...my bad.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:41 PM (/izg2)

166
The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states.

Get with the program, Gabe. The Constitution is an outdated piece of shit written by old, dead, white men.

That means we can do whatever we want to nowadays.

Wheeee!!!

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 22, 2011 08:44 PM (7+pP9)

167 The Constitution specifically limits what the
government is allowed to call treason that's about the extent of
it. Look it up.

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM

Once again, it's in the way you interpret the words. Many of us apply the Constitutional standard and would, if on a jury, find Osama Obama and some members of Congress as guilty of treason as Bradley Manning.

In the same vein, people say the Mohammedan Mouthpiece shouldn't be impeached. Define "high crimes and misdemeanors." For some, the antics of his campaign, perjury and unconstitutional usurpation of power are enough. Others would give the guy a pass no matter what.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 08:47 PM (Ulu3i)

168 Nullification = a polite way to show one's fist, poised to strike at a given face, while asking "is that your final answer?"

Posted by: Stillwater at January 22, 2011 08:48 PM (0GpN4)

169 "I notice that none of the opponents of this idea touched my example about of how they would respond if Obama claimed the right to appoint State governors. Is it different in scope then Obamacare? Sure. Is it different in kind? No."

Fine, I'm game.

IF the SCOTUS finds, say, the personsl mandate unconstitutional, and Obama enforces it anyway, impeach, try, and depose his ass.

If he refuses to leave office and attempts to hold on to power after being legally removed by Congress, all bets are off and I'd join the barricades.

We're nowhere near that point. And nullification is a bad, bad idea. Isn't that what "sanctuary cities" are doing? What if liberal states decide to nullify other laws, laws we like?

No, nullification is s gimmick. We need to do the hard work if winning the Senate and Presidency, and then have the guts to kill Obamacare the right way.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 08:48 PM (tJjm/)

170

I think the landmark decision of Roe v Marbury renders this specious argument mute.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 22, 2011 08:48 PM (7+pP9)

171 Nuttification? Does that mean what I think it means??

Posted by: Ann Althouse at January 22, 2011 08:49 PM (MMC8r)

172 Define "high crimes and misdemeanors."


Assisting in the invasion of our nation by foreign nationals by preventing law enforcement from doing their job?

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:49 PM (/izg2)

173 Any attempt to drag the Civil War into this discussion is stupid. Sick and tired of being raped economically beaten in a fair election by politically-connected business interests in the North the Republican Partyand opponents of the barbaric institution of slavery,the South declared independence decided to orchestrate themurder of hundreds of thousands of loyal American soldiersrather than respectbasic human dignity and the rule of law, aided and abettedby the Democratic Party, natch;it didn't nullify anything.
Posted by: Citizen Snips at January 22, 2011 07:59 PM (Omwhl)
FIFY

Posted by: Paul at January 22, 2011 08:50 PM (DsHk0)

174 Federal courts only decide constitutional questions? SCOTUS is the only court provided for by the constitution.

Posted by: gm

I see you avoided the question. I'll restate it in case it wasn't clear.

If the Founders did not see a need for SCOTUS to provide review, then why did was it the only one provided for in the USC?

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:50 PM (h2t8r)

175 Assisting in the invasion of our nation by foreign nationals by preventing law enforcement from doing their job?


Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:49 PM

That's actually a double-duty crime: impeachable and treasonous.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 08:51 PM (Ulu3i)

176 If the Founders did not see a need for SCOTUS to provide review, then why did was it the only one provided for in the USC?

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:50 PM (h2t8r)

It was provided for in the USC, but the constitution says nothing about its role or the form of its implementation. Judicial review stems IN ITS ENTIRETY from Marbury Vs. Madison. There is no other constitutional authority for it.

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:52 PM (K1emW)

177 No, it's more a question that if the courts aren't supposed to play a
role then why the fuck did the founders include it in the fucking
Constitution?

The powers of the judicial branch are defined in the Constitution as are the executive and legislative. If the founders didn't intend the executive and legislative branches to "have a role" why did they include them?

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:52 PM (bgcml)

178 We have tried to work through the system and we will continue to try.The anger is building though,the executive contiues to do whatever it wants.Personally I think the violence will start from the left and drag us all in.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 08:54 PM (5Y1gW)

179 One thing about the role of the SCOTUS - correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but doesn't the constitution give the Congress the perogative ti rule certain areas outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? For example, could not Congress theoretically remove the personal mandate - or abortion, for that matter - from judicial review?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 08:54 PM (tJjm/)

180 The assumption of the extent of SCOTUS's power has always been
exactly that -- an assumption -- from John Marshall right down to the
present.

And bitterly opposed by, among others, Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:55 PM (bgcml)

181 Goldbricker,

Your weak arguments also fall flat. Can we deal with the text, instead of what you want the text to say?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases
affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases
of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the
United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more
States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens
of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands
under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Plus a bit of extra stuff in the 11th Amendment seems to resolve this matter rather clearly.

Your entire position depends on the logical fallacy of "presuming what you seek to prove." Your conclusion is the same as your starting point.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 08:56 PM (wMXoq)

182 @44:"The Constitution itself... forbids secession."
Oh? Where? It's a subject the Con is silent on. You could probably torture the 14th Amendment in that direction, with a claim that a seceeded state could not remove US citizenship from its citizens. But that doesn't forbid secession...it just means that a state has to tell its citizens to renounce their US citizenship, or get out. Given the flurry of amendments after the Civil War, it is odd that none explicitly address secession. I wonder if the Soviet constitution had an anti-secession plank.

Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at January 22, 2011 08:57 PM (FL/qM)

183 Undead States,

How dare you not concede the logical fallacy of the Gabe and Gold! How dare you not accept their proposal that we all presume in advance the very thing they seek to prove!

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 08:59 PM (wMXoq)

184 I'm not sorry. I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic ...
You ah, missed a few words there. And I don't give a rats ass how you take your oaths.

I take mine "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion".

How long's it been? Are you senile? You know they say memory is the first to go.

Here's an idea to wrap your mind around:
Who says an amendment to the constitution HAS to be proposed in the US Congress BEFORE it's ratified by the several states?

What if, (hear me out) what if thirty some states ratified the same change to the constitution?

How do think the Soros-Saudi funded ObowMao machine would react?

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at January 22, 2011 08:59 PM (Q1qy3)

185 So, let's say a President declares himself Dictator, the House and Senate say "Cool with us" and the Supremes say "'bout time", do we just sit there and say "Oh well, the Supremes said it was ok"?

The Constitution has two major flaws: it relies on human beings and it can't prevent its own corrupting influence. It can't stop the power it has from being corrupted. In fact the balance of power between the branches, something that is supposed to protect order and freedom, is the very thing that leads to the loss of both.

The Constitution is hoisting itself on its own petard. It is a natural consequence of its design.



Posted by: eman at January 22, 2011 08:59 PM (x3v1D)

186 The powers of the judicial branch are defined in the
Constitution as are the executive and legislative. If the founders
didn't intend the executive and legislative branches to "have a role"
why did they include them? Posted by: 18-1

Checks and balances, obviously. As you implied, the judiciary is on the same level textually as the Legislative and the Executive; all are Article level constructions.

That is not to say that the Judiciary is supreme, rather it is another of the interlocking constraints on law.

Look at it this way; the Executive has veto power over the Legislative, and, yet the Executive is not supreme. Likewise SCOTUS has review but cannot create legislation whole cloth.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:59 PM (h2t8r)

187
For example, could not Congress theoretically
remove the personal mandate - or abortion, for that matter - from
judicial review?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 08:54 PM (tJjm/)
No. That would be unconstitutional.

It's a complicated matter but if you closely read Wade v. Madison decision you'll understand why.

Posted by: Ed Anger at January 22, 2011 09:00 PM (7+pP9)

188 If the SC does not overturn Obamacare, then the country as we know it is lost.
At that point, I say we(Conservative flyover country, the Atlantic Coast, South, Midwest, Mountain West, Alaska)get together with the Western Provinces of Canada and reform under the old Constitution and D of I with changes that caused the statist drift in the first place. Let the Liberals have Maryland on up through the Eastern Provinces and California and Hawaii(this way we can still be flyover country to them). Everybody that is a legal citizen of either the United States or Canada gets to choose which country they want to live in and have house for house swaps for switchers.
No Bloodshed, but the Progressives would cry because they would have nobody to control against their will.
My guess is that over 60% of the population would join the conservative country.
Hypothetically, of course.

Posted by: The Great and Secret Show at January 22, 2011 09:00 PM (hyDaS)

189 If the states are indeed sovereign, then why is
nullification at the state level of absurdly unconstitutional laws that
infringe upon the states' 10th Amendment rights unconstitutional?

Posted by: The War

Way to avoid the question yet again.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:00 PM (h2t8r)

190 Personally I think the violence will start from the left and drag us all in.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 08:54 PM

Probably so. My guess is that it will start with the coming -- and, thanks to the current Congress and lefties who encourage the Osama Obama regime to keep on spending, unavoidable -- financial meltdown. Take away the "Constitutional right" to free health care, free food, free housing and, for all I know, free cars for the protected classes, and it's SHTF time.

If the conservatives were going to man the barricades, they would have done it months ago. Instead, they keep arguing about what the Constitution means while it's being taken away from them.

My personal choice is secession. I hope I'm in one of the first states to go (CA won't as it needs to suck on that federal teat), but if not I'll relocate when I hear enough people in any state start saying "enough!"

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 09:01 PM (Ulu3i)

191 If the states are indeed sovereign, then why is nullification at the state level of absurdly unconstitutional laws that infringe upon the states' 10th Amendment rights unconstitutional?

IF there was no SCOTUS judicial review, you would have a point. Also, let's remember that 2/3rds of the states can always call for a second constitutional convention: if clealy unconstitutional law was upheld by the SCOTUS, the states acting together would have that ultimate remedy.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:02 PM (tJjm/)

192 The assumption of the extent of SCOTUS's power has always been
exactly that -- an assumption -- from John Marshall right down to the
present.

The SC can affirm or overturn lower court decisions, or take original jurisdiction in specified cases. If the Court states that a law is unconstitutional, it's saying that it will overturn all convictions based on that law that come before it. Normally, that ends the deal. Who is going to keep bringing cases that will be overturned?

But that's it. The Justices are not divine oracles, nor can they ac tualize their ruling. If the political branches agree that the court is in error, they can just ignore its rulings, and they have in cases past.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 09:02 PM (S5YRY)

193 John Roberts, you're welcome to chime in with anything you think might be helpful.
Wouldn't it be nice if that ignoramus Sotomayor showed up? And I'm not doubting hermental horsepowerjust because I disagree with her. Even Laurence Tribe tried to nix that nomination.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 09:02 PM (Ghgw8)

194 ObamaCare's unfunded mandates will send every state in the Union off a fiscal cliff and they have the right to protect themselves
That and more-- it'll help send the entire country off that cliff and states are nervous that just removing the 'individual mandate' (even if found unconstitutional) won't go far enough to save us. Of couse, said individual mandate seems the only part we're even allowed to appeal, whilethat one aspectmay be the least of our worries.

Posted by: Stillwater at January 22, 2011 09:03 PM (0GpN4)

195 195 I'm still a patriot.The glee that would give our enemies sticks in my craw.I still hope we can avoid the worst case.It will be bad in any case.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:04 PM (5Y1gW)

196 Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:46 PM (bgcml)
You would think getting hanged would at least get me remembered, oh well ...

Posted by: Zombie John Brown at January 22, 2011 09:04 PM (CPefM)

197 My personal choice is secession. I hope I'm in one of the first states
to go (CA won't as it needs to suck on that federal teat), but if not
I'll relocate when I hear enough people in any state start saying
"enough!"
Yup.

Posted by: Peaches at January 22, 2011 09:04 PM (zxpIo)

198 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

Posted by: Absalom

Thanks for doing my homework.

That bold part must mean something. Hmm, I wonder what?

"Your entire position depends on the logical fallacy of "presuming what
you seek to prove." Your conclusion is the same as your starting point."

Nope, it was a question that more than a few us can't seem to answer. SCOTUS has the implicit power of review. We really need to tighten up our game if we're stuck on that part.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:05 PM (h2t8r)

199 Gold,

To affirm your argument that SCOTUS can not create legislation out of thin air it seems you are relying on Marbury... a situation in which SCOTUS created both legislation and Constitutional language out of thin air.

How is this clear and logical thinking?

A simple reading of the text in question shows that SCOTUS is in all ways subject to the legislative branch, so much so that the legislative branch can expressly and clearly restrict what SCOTUS may or may not take up.

The branch that is subject to the power of the legislature is at the same time able to override that same legislature? A=A', clear as day, I see it now. Aren't these the basic logical contradictions that an L1 is supposed to learn to avoid?

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:05 PM (wMXoq)

200 196 The problem being that some states are owned by the Feds and will never challenge them.How many would?Not enough I bet.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:05 PM (5Y1gW)

201 Yeah, well I am quite explicit too. Try openly carrying a pistol in Times Square.

Posted by: The 2nd Amendment at January 22, 2011 09:06 PM (o2QOm)

202 >>> If the Founders did not see a need for SCOTUS to provide review, then why did was it the only one provided for in the USC?
Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:50 PM (h2t8r)

Clearly a federal court would be necessary to address federal law. Further, Marbury was a controversial decision when many of the Founders were still around and still needed to be decided (i.e., illustrating that it wasn't already assumed).

And I'm not saying that SCOTUS should not decide constitutional issues. I just wish that it had been given the authority in a more definitive way (e.g., by constitutional amendment). That way, their powers could have been defined and limited; i.e., precluding them from having the authority to just make shit up based on their policy preferences (like they do now).

Posted by: gm at January 22, 2011 09:08 PM (HXzaq)

203 207 Yeah,theres that too.We live in a police state andd Americans are,by and large,okay with that.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:08 PM (5Y1gW)

204 Fine, I'm game.



IF the SCOTUS finds, say, the personsl mandate unconstitutional, and Obama enforces it anyway, impeach, try, and depose his ass.

That's not exactly my point.Whether it is the Executive, the Judicial branch, or all three branches acting against the Constitution, how do "we the people" respond? So let me draw a little clearer...

Suppose SCOTUS rules the mandate constitutional via the Commerce Clause AND that there is in fact a right to healthcare in the Constitution. Obamacare, or worse, is the law now and for as long as there are 5 leftist judges on the court. What exactly should the electorate of Virgina or Texas do? Wait 20 years and hope they can elect the correct Presidents and Senators to get the right SC justices to overturn the decision?

Are we supposed to teach our children that they live under the Constitution when in fact they do not? And to faithfully execute unconstitutional laws?

We're nowhere near that point. And nullification is a bad, bad idea.
Isn't that what "sanctuary cities" are doing? What if liberal states
decide to nullify other laws, laws we like?


Again, false equivalency. Ignoring an unconstitutional law is not the same as ignoring a constitutional one. Further, as your argument notes, the left already ignores laws it does not like, irrespective of constitutionality.

And as a final note, if we truly live in a country where an honest, truly federal system cannot house our two political ideologies, then why are we continuing to try and force them to stay together?

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 09:08 PM (bgcml)

205 In other words, South Carolina won in the 1830s. Wisconsin, etc.won in the 1850s, since the law went widely unenforced.

Posted by: KB at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (YncUp)

206
If the SC does not overturn Obamacare, then the country as we know it is lost.

At that point, I say we(Conservative flyover country, the Atlantic
Coast, South, Midwest, Mountain West, Alaska)get together with the
Western Provinces of Canada and reform under the old Constitution and D
of I with changes that caused the statist drift in the first place. Let
the Liberals have Maryland on up through the Eastern Provinces and
California and Hawaii(this way we can still be flyover country to
them). Everybody that is a legal citizen of either the United States or
Canada gets to choose which country they want to live in and have house
for house swaps for switchers.

No Bloodshed, but the Progressives would cry because they would have nobody to control against their will.
My guess is that over 60% of the population would join the conservative country

----

If only... I would leave purple florida and flee to Montana. Whether my body ever recovered is one question, but at least, my mind would have peace, and my kids would have freedom...

Posted by: NaturalCitizen at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (HqFeB)

207 Gold,

Finally you get it.

There is no such thing as the implcit power of review, only a naked power grab.

You can rejoice over emanations from penumbras all you wish. The text itself is clear in this matter, and both the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers show quite clearly that none of the original ratifiers or the framers believed an all powerful federal government was being erected which was only answerable to itself and its own branches. That is precisely the sort of thing that sparked a little conflict with the British, circa 1776.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (wMXoq)

208 Bad laws and bad SCOTUS decisions happen a lot faster than new amendments get ratified.

And guess what, millions of people in several States like those bad laws and bad SCOTUS decisions.

It is foolish to count on the amendment process.

Posted by: eman at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (x3v1D)

209 You miss the point. I was posing another question
for which, as with yours, there is no definitive answer using
constitutional language.In other words, nullification is just as valid as judicial review.

Posted by: The War

So Article III was written, and passed, in order to give the states nullification? Sorry, I don't follow.




Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (h2t8r)

210 @187: Lincoln's legal basis for prosecuting the Civil War was that it is impossible to leave the Union, since the constitution makes no allowance for such a thing. Therefore, legally the Southern states never actually left the Union, but rather fell into a state of lawlessness. Lincoln acted to restore law and order in the South.

That was the theory, anyway. When I asked my professor why, then, did the Southern states have to apply for readmission to the Union, if they never really left, he was stumped.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:10 PM (tJjm/)

211 195 I'm still a patriot.The glee that would give our
enemies sticks in my craw.I still hope we can avoid the worst case.It
will be bad in any case.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:04 PM

So am I. The question if/when this happens will be: which nation is the real United States? The breakaway lands that are ruled by the original Constitution, or the People's Republic of America, ruled by would-be totalitarians and vengeance-seeking criminals?

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 09:10 PM (Ulu3i)

212 My secret plan is to get the USSC to start defending the Constitution--to get the other justices to realize this is our sole purpose and that to do anything less would be an abdication of our authority. It's not our job to sit back and let someone's notion of shifting sentiment and/or Congress re-make the country. It's now or never. If never, then the USSC will cease to bea viablebranch. I can't believe that the liberal judges believe so wholeheartedly in power centralized in Congress that they would completely forget about the purpose of the Constitution.

Posted by: John Roberts at January 22, 2011 09:11 PM (Ghgw8)

213 And so we devolve, once "implicit" powers are cited without ceasing, into the original problem... the liberal position (gold and gabe's) is one of might makes right. Which is entirely contrary to the Constitution itself, based around rule of law.

Thus the very document merely becomes a war of "my implicit reading" vs "your implicit reading", and once the debate shifts to which implicit reading is correct, those that uphold the correct view (the original text means what it says and says what it means) have been presumed already to be incorrect even when that is what the usurpers sought to improve.

The number of logical fallacies that must be compounded in order to make the usurper position viable is astounding.

I for one refuse to accept this logical positivism/relativism.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:12 PM (wMXoq)

214 Here's an idea to wrap your mind around:Who says an amendment to the constitution HAS to be proposed in the US Congress BEFORE it's ratified by the several states?What if, (hear me out) what if thirty some states ratified the same change to the constitution?

Huh. That is an interesting idea. If you read Article 5 carefully, it doesn't strictly say that Congress must act before the states.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 09:13 PM (PaSAU)

215 If the SC does not overturn Obamacare, then the country as we know it is lost.
At that point, I say we(Conservative flyover country, the Atlantic Coast, South, Midwest, Mountain West, Alaska)get together with the Western Provinces of Canada and reform under the old Constitution and D of I with changes that caused the statist drift in the first place. Let the Liberals have Maryland on up through the Eastern Provinces and California and Hawaii(this way we can still be flyover country to them). Everybody that is a legal citizen of either the United States or Canada gets to choose which country they want to live in and have house for house swaps for switchers.
No Bloodshed, but the Progressives would cry because they would have nobody to control against their will.
Posted by: NaturalCitizen at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (HqFeB)
I sure hope all the neo-secessionists this thread seems to be drawing out are just joking. If there is one thing the Civil War settled beyond all doubt, it's that states don't get to just leave. There WILL be bloodshed, and the ones crying will be loyal patriotic Americans whose country was destroyed not by Chinese or Iranian nukes, but because some people didn't like the Health Care Reform Act.

Posted by: Paul at January 22, 2011 09:13 PM (DsHk0)

216 Gold,

You say judicial review is implicit. By what means, other than invoking judicial review, can you claim to support judicial review?

You have begged the question.

Please consult Mr. Woods' book on nullification. You have also committed the staggering fallacy of accept as fact what your liberal law profs spoon fed you. Liberals lie, it is their nature and the core of their political ideology.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:15 PM (wMXoq)

217 212 IF there was no SCOTUS judicial review, you would have a point.

Why? What empowers SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality? The Constitution itself sure doesn't.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (z3veE)

The Congress and Presidency each have acknowledged the role of the SCOTUS. Now, if tomorrow they declared that the SCOTUS had usurped that power and enacted a law stripping it of the power of judicial review, I'm not sure what the SCOTUS could do about it. But thr resultant legal chaos would be horrific.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:15 PM (tJjm/)

218 .. The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit
that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of
the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies
state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree...

Seems this assumes that federal law fits within the bounds of the 10th amendment (as well as others). If not, then seems the states might have a case. Minimally, it would seem a process to minimize damage to state (budgets) caused by federal mandates that are outside federal powers until such cases are heard by the SC...

Posted by: drfredc at January 22, 2011 09:16 PM (puRnk)

219 "There is no such thing as the implicit power of review, only a naked power grab.Posted by: Absalom"

Nope, didn't write that. I wrote, "SCOTUS has the implicit power of review."

"You
can rejoice over emanations from penumbras all you wish."

I've done no such thing nor intend it. If you wish to put words on my keyboard or impute motives, don't bother.

"The text
itself is clear in this matter, and both the Federalist and
AntiFederalist papers show quite clearly that none of the original
ratifiers or the framers believed an all powerful federal government was
being erected which was only answerable to itself and its own
branches."

Total misread of the matter at hand. Judicial review does not equal 'an all powerful federal government.' If you believe so, then, pound away. I haven't read a coherent argument for that in a while.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:16 PM (h2t8r)

220 222 Let me make this clear,I DON'T want any secession.I KNOW it would be disastrous.My contention is that we are being driven to destruction by one means or another.Secession is one of the possible hells we are destined for,that is all.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:18 PM (5Y1gW)

221 CoolCzech,

So because the federal government agrees with the federal government that the federal government is all powerful, the federal government is indeed all powerful?

That's the sort of mentally ill thinking exhibited by the Tucson shooter and has batshit crazy syllogisms.

Who decides the limits of the power of the federal government? According to you, the federal government and none else. That's the sort of agreement that 13 sovereign colonies would agree to after overthrowing a king who claimed absolute power over them? Really? Really?

This line of thinking is absurd on its face.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:18 PM (wMXoq)

222 @221: well, that would essentially be a second constitutional convention, right?

There will never be one, because God only knows what would come out of it. Don't assume only conservative ideas would.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:18 PM (tJjm/)

223 Isn't ObamaCare really the only thing, of all the rotten crapO Duce has done, that we could possibly undo? Isn't that why we're still fighting it, nearly a year after passage (beside the fact that it's a bad law?)

Posted by: Stillwater at January 22, 2011 09:19 PM (0GpN4)

224

Normal
0


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4






/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}





Sorry. I took an
oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously.
You and millions of others.



Against Enemies, foreign and domestic



Did anybody take an oath to uphold the dictates of Five of
Nine?



Did not think so, most just tolerate their shit.

Posted by: The Federalist No. 46 at January 22, 2011 09:19 PM (RnujI)

225 The SC gave the Congress too much power with their Commerce Clause bs. So, ultimately, we end up here with EbolaCare and a whole list of other crap chaining us to a tree, and the Constitution itself is the enemy of Freedom.



Posted by: eman at January 22, 2011 09:21 PM (x3v1D)

226 Who decides the limits of the power of the federal government?
The Constitution is our social contract, the supreme law of the land. As a great man once said:
First, men are flawed and naturally self-interested. This is not a shifting moral view. Thus, in order to form civil society, there has to be a social contract, and part of that contract establishes some degree of monopoly-like power to enforce other parts of the contract. Unless the anointed (Tad and Tribe) are running things, this enforcement mechanism, run by mortals, is dangerous. So restraints are also built into the contract to protect against abuse. Since abuse can never be completely eliminated, yes, the framers intended to bind future generations. The Constitution dwells on these restraints at length because they are the only thing between liberty and the harsh control of flawed man.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 09:21 PM (Ghgw8)

227 Gold,

If the power is implicit, and not explicit, it is not clearly enumerated.

Amendment 10 is rather clear, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."

If judicial review were a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution the text of the Constitution would say so.

Judicial review, like abortion and the "right to privacy" appears nowhere in the text as delegated to the United States.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:21 PM (wMXoq)

228 You say judicial review is implicit.
By what means, other than invoking judicial review, can you claim to
support judicial review?Posted by: Absalom
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"You have begged the question."

Nope. Right there from your hot little fingers.

"Please
consult Mr. Woods' book on nullification. You have also committed the
staggering fallacy of accept as fact what your liberal law profs spoon
fed you."

Dare I posit 'begging the question?' No, I shall not. Thanks for the book recommendation, though.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:21 PM (h2t8r)

229 the ones crying will be loyal patriotic Americans
whose country was destroyed not by Chinese or Iranian nukes, but
because some people didn't like the Health Care Reform Act.

Posted by: Paul at January 22, 2011 09:13 PM
Your alternative?

It is not just OsamaObamaScare that prompts this, it is the seemingly intentional destruction of our economy, the usurpation of power by all three branches of government, none of whom seem to think there are any "rights reserved to the people," the encouragement of foreign invaders (treason), and a thousand-and-one smaller crimes.

I used to believe in the "next election, we're gonna straighten everything out" meme. And yet I see that doing so not only requires an intelligent, qualified (by law) electorate, but also the willingness of the ruling elite to recognize the messages the public is sending.

The rational way of handling things would be to impeach Obama and recall at least the most notorious criminals in Congress. But mere mention of those acts brings out the Poppin' Fresh crowd to piss and moan about the "optics."

One way out involves possible bloodshed and the other, which seems preferred by armchair conservatives, is to be chewed up and spat out in the hopes that the government will somehow come to its senses before it's too late.

Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 09:23 PM (Ulu3i)

230 Let me make this clear,I DON'T want any secession.I KNOW it would be disastrous.

Indeed. The Late Unpleasantness, with Nuclear Weapons.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 09:23 PM (S5YRY)

231 RDBrewer,

Whilst ye might be here, have you seen that NYT article about the free-lance spy master?

Fascinating shit (hint, hint.)

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:24 PM (h2t8r)

232 @228: Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter?

Somebody has to have that role.

If the SCOTUS became absurd or tyranical, Congress could at some point say enough. And if Congress became tyranical and so did the President, the states legally can rewrite the constitution and abolish the current federal government altogether. And if the STATES become tyranical...

That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:24 PM (tJjm/)

233 So restraints are also built into the contract to protect against abuse. Since abuse can never be completely eliminated, yes, the framers intended to bind future generations. The Constitution dwells on these restraints at length because they are the only thing between liberty and the harsh control of flawed man.

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 09:21 PM (Ghgw

Yes, and they have failed.

Posted by: eman at January 22, 2011 09:24 PM (x3v1D)

234 Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter?

The problem is that SCOTUS doesn't do that job very well...

Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 09:25 PM (2k/Dg)

235 The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit
that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of
the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies
state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree.

You mean like immigration Law?

Posted by: zilch at January 22, 2011 09:27 PM (Wr3zz)

236 Goldbricker, I'll pass that on to the open bloggers. I'm on the verge of cracking a book. Just can't. pull. away...

Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 09:29 PM (Ghgw8)

237 243 'Cause our government is bigger than your government.We have ships tanks and planes and nukes too.

Posted by: The Feds at January 22, 2011 09:30 PM (5Y1gW)

238 @222-Paul

If the Healthcare Reform Act stands, then America has already died. The neo-secessionists would just be cremating the body and getting on with their damn lives.

Posted by: Thresher at January 22, 2011 09:30 PM (DG56/)

239 Maybe God will save us with a nice world war.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:30 PM (5Y1gW)

240 Your blanket statement concerning the so-called Supremacy Clause is misleading.

Alexander Hamilton addressed the extent of this Clause in Federalist Essay No. 33:

"t is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution"

In the New York Ratifying Convention, Hamilton stated:

"I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this: that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government. The states, as well as individuals, are bound by these laws: but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent powers, in which they are supreme"

There is a separation of power between the States and their federal government. (See Federalist Essay No. 45) The federal government does not exist and has no power outside of that separation of power.

When the federal government steps outside of its sphere of power, the States, as the exclusive parties to the Constitution, (See Article VII) have the absolute right nullify any act of their federal government that transcends the separation of power.


Posted by: Skylolo at January 22, 2011 09:31 PM (W2FZX)

241 Did anybody take an oath to uphold the dictates of Five of
Nine?

I took an oath to uphold the dictates of Seven of Nine. Does that count?

Posted by: Jack Ryan at January 22, 2011 09:31 PM (PaSAU)

242 Gold,

Rather simply... as my hot little fingers showed... SCOTUS should and is restricted to appellate jurisdiction to be exercised only in matters of law and fact, with the exception of the list of exceptions immediately preceding the relevant clause.

Have you even bothered to read the document we are discussing here?

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:32 PM (wMXoq)

243 @243: the SCOTUS is NOT the final, absolute power because a constitutional amendment can always overrule it. And if Congress refuses to pass an amendment the nation demands, the states can gather together and abolish the current constitution and congress.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:32 PM (tJjm/)

244 228: Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter?

The constitution, on [the theory only the SC can decide constitutionality], is a mere thing of wax in the
hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please.

It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in
politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is
absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people
is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be
trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently
independent of all but moral law.

My construction of the constitution is
very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly
independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself
what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its
action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without
appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I
was in office, are better known to me, and the principles which
governed them.
--Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 09:33 PM (bgcml)

245 Interesting. So I'm reading this article: http://tinyurl.com/4jx67rh and it looks like the Article 5 convention thing has been attempted many many times but none were successful, but a few were very close to succeeding. There was one for a federal balanced budget amendment back in the early 80's that fell only 2 states short. Would now be a fertile time to restart this process? The article suggests that once a convention is called, it doesn't have to be limited in scope. And the R's have a huge majority in legislatures. This is our chance.

Posted by: Jack Ryan at January 22, 2011 09:34 PM (PaSAU)

246 oops sock off

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 09:35 PM (PaSAU)

247 251 @243: the SCOTUS is NOT the final, absolute power because a constitutional amendment can always overrule it. And if Congress refuses to pass an amendment the nation demands, the states can gather together and abolish the current constitution and congress.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:32 PM (tJjm/)
Yeah uhhu, just keep thinking that. Why its not like anyone would ever attempt to argue in court that an amendment to a constitution is actually unconstitutional and attempt to get it nullified.

Posted by: buzzion at January 22, 2011 09:36 PM (oVQFe)

248 Who says Marbury is constitutional? SCOTUS? Why do they get to decide? Oh yeah, because of Marbury. It's a "because I said so argument", which isn't all that persuasive.

I bet if you say "because I said so" in latin, its a winning argument because of the "what the hell did he just say?" factor. Sort of like "Staris decisis" or whatever.

Posted by: Buck O. Phive at January 22, 2011 09:36 PM (HwIdb)

249 "Article III does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. We're discussing the Court's assumed
role as final arbiter of constitutional legislation. And if the states
are sovereign then it would be totally meaningless for the Constitution
to "give" them such a power; ... Posted by: The War"
Thanks for the reply.

That's why I had a bit of a problem with your 'question' to my 'question.' They aren't really connected.

"A U.S. Supreme Court that holds the final, absolute word on federal legislation impacting the states, in essence the federal government overseeing itself,
is not a power granted that government in the Constitution. Nowhere in
the document, nor in any of the amendments added to it in the years
since, is there language granting such an authority to any branch of the
federal government."

I could be an ass and insist for a clear response for why the Founders included Article III with the language I've been bouncing off Absalom, but here's another take;

It is granted to the Federal government because the USC is the framework for the Federal government. Yes, the Federal government is part of the Federal government. Stunning, I know.

Honestly, how could the USC describe an independent and authorized body to review Federal Law without being part and parcel? That's a Schoedinger cat in an Escher puzzle.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:36 PM (h2t8r)

250 "Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter?"

Since we've now moved on to the real issue, that's a great question.

Absent a clear delegation of the power to nullify to the federal government, I think Amendment 10 says something about "all powers."

It's almost like the document means what it says and says what it means.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:36 PM (wMXoq)

251 249 Did anybody take an oath to uphold the dictates of Five of Nine?

I took an oath to uphold the dictates of Seven of Nine. Does that count?
Posted by: Jack Ryan at January 22, 2011 09:31 PM (PaSAU)


You blew it when you asked to see Seven in Nine.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:36 PM (tJjm/)

252 from Wikipedia:

Article V of the Constitution specifies that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states petition Congress for a constitutional amendment on the same subject, then Congress must call a convention for proposing that amendment. Between April 29, 1975 and January 29, 1980, 34 petitions from 30 different state legislatures were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The participating states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Since 1980, two additional state legislatures have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment, bringing the total number of participating states to 32. If two additional state legislatures were to petition, then the required two-thirds majority of states would be reached (34 out of 50 states) and some contend that Congress would be required to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment. In December 2008, the Ohio legislature considered making Ohio the 33rd state to petition for a convention on the subject, but decided against it.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 09:40 PM (PaSAU)

253 @259: OK, so what mechanism would the states employ? Send delegates to a meeting to have a vote?

Don't we call that, Congress?

We can't have a nation if every individual srate can decide any national law can be nullified. That would be total chaos. The USA would fall apart.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:41 PM (tJjm/)

254 Gold,

You're finally coming around. How could the USC describe such a thing?

Well, it COULD do so in a multitude of ways. However, it does not do so. It establishes an appellate court on matters of law and fact, that has original jurisdiction in a handful of expressly defined areas. It does not establish a Constitutional Court with the power of nullification.

You are still presuming what you seek to prove, absent any textual support. The argument in favor of judicial review can not be "Judicial review is there because people who made up judicial review say judicial review is there."

Demonstrate judicial review on its own merits, or admit that it does not appear in the text.

Further, please demonstrate that the founders intended to create a federal government accountable only to itself that eliminated the sovereignty of states, and square that circle against the clear text of the document. "Sovereign" and "Subject" are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:41 PM (wMXoq)

255 It is not just OsamaObamaScare that prompts this, it is the seemingly intentional destruction of our economy, the usurpation of power by all three branches of government, none of whom seem to think there are any "rights reserved to the people," the encouragement of foreign invaders (treason), and a thousand-and-one smaller crimes.
Posted by: MrScribbler at January 22, 2011 09:23 PM
Exactly, we are approaching $15 Trillion in debt and my 4 month old does not deserve the burden of our federal government run amuck. I would like to see people come to their logical senses, but that means cronyism would have to be an old English word instead of modern English, and it only seems to get worse...look at the Jeffery Immelt appointment. GE has been in bed with the goverment for far too long and that is being shown as the path to enlightment for corporations and individuals, just liket the Obamacare waivers. If we are a nation of laws for the connected, we are no longer a nation of free men.
And a side note. Isn't it interesting that the Constitution is flexible as a double jointed ballerina at a Cirque de Soleil show, yet case law argued in front of the Supreme Court is somehow set in stone? BS. If the Constitution is a living breathing document then sure as hell, case law can be overridden at the drop of a hat. So I say to the states, nullify away.

Posted by: The Great and Secret Show at January 22, 2011 09:41 PM (hyDaS)

256 Shorter Gabe: If Obama orders us into camps, I'll go quietly. Because "orders are orders".

In 1933, he wouldn't have known 6 million dead lay ahead. Now he does.

Posted by: SDN at January 22, 2011 09:42 PM (gy9kX)

257 Absent a clear delegation of the power to nullify to
the federal government, I think Amendment 10 says something about "all
powers."
It's almost like the document means what it says and says what it means.

Posted by: Absalom

Well, thanks for finally answering the question. Better late than never, I suppose.

So states get the review? That would mean, ultimately, that all legislation is purely an arena of politics and zero judiciary. Interesting concept to be sure, but them black robes are going to be awfully lonely.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:42 PM (h2t8r)

258 CoolCzech,

The Constitution does not mandate that we have no Chaos.

I know the idea of a world without central planning and diktats from DC is a scary world, but freedom can be frightening.

The rather obvious conclusion here is that, by and large, we should have almost no national laws. Let each of the many states decide laws for themselves.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:43 PM (wMXoq)

259 Maybe God will save us with a nice world war.

You joke but I think that's more likely that succession. If the global financial system collapses, we end up renouncing all our debts held by foreigners. Everyone then has to seize resources or they get frozen out. Canada and Latin America are right next door to us. China grabs for Manchuria, or Russia goes for Persia and the Middle East. Western Europe's boned. India probably as well.

God knows who tries for Africa.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 09:44 PM (S5YRY)

260 268 Not joking and yes,it is more likely.The world is a tinder box right now.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:45 PM (5Y1gW)

261 Gold,

I'm glad you've finally come around to the argument in favor of nullification. States do indeed get the review, as the founders intended, as the text makes explicitly clearly. Especially so in amendment 10, powers not expressly delegated etc.

The primary activity of law making and governance was to occur at the state level.

What part of "Sovereign" don't you understand?

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:47 PM (wMXoq)

262 It's pretty clear to me that a constitutional convention will be needed in the future to clear up all the issues, problems and ambiguities in the Constitution. The patchwork solutions really only go so far.

Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 09:47 PM (2k/Dg)

263 "However, it does not do so. It establishes an
appellate court on matters of law and fact, that has original
jurisdiction in a handful of expressly defined areas. It does not
establish a Constitutional Court with the power of nullification. [...] Posted by: Absalom"

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"You
are still presuming what you seek to prove, absent any textual
support."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"The argument in favor of judicial review can not be "Judicial
review is there because people who made up judicial review say judicial
review is there.Demonstrate judicial review on its own merits, or admit that it does not appear in the text."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"Further,
please demonstrate that the founders intended to create a federal
government accountable only to itself that eliminated the sovereignty of
states, and square that circle against the clear text of the document."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:49 PM (h2t8r)

264 It's pretty clear to me that a constitutional convention will be needed
in the future to clear up all the issues, problems and ambiguities in
the Constitution.
It's our best hope.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 09:49 PM (S5YRY)

265 Absalom, you act like Congress is populated by aliens. The representatives in Congress were sent there by the same people that send legislators to the state capitals, after all. What makes you think you wouldn't wind up with 50 state versions of Washington, D.C.? Do Sacramento or Albany look like model governments to you?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:49 PM (tJjm/)

266 CoolCzech,

And further, better that the nation be held together by the force of Mr. Lincoln's legions and 600,000 dead?

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:50 PM (wMXoq)

267 All fucking lawyers must fucking hang.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 22, 2011 09:52 PM (xmuv/)

268 CoolCzech,

If Sacramento and Albany can not resolve their own affairs, let it remain Sacramento's and Albany's problem.

Let me be clear. I am not making a utilitarian argument. I am not making a pragmatic argument. I am making a principled and textual argument.

If you wish to see the Constitution change in some fashion, I fully support your efforts to change it through the amendment process. If you wish to use the amendment process to empower SCOTUS to have judicial review, or to formally eliminate nullification, or to do still some other thing in still some other way, I am fully supportive of your effort to do so (as a matter of principle, I may disagree with the specifics of your effort, but I support the process and the mechanism).

The fact remains, a ultra powerful centralized government possessing unlimited power over 50 subject states is not what the Constitution gives us.

If (and/or when) you or others manage to amend the Constitution, I will defend your amendment as the rule of law with equal vigor and force (even as I may seek to have it changed via further amendment), because that would then be the Supreme Law of the Land.

But as it stands, the text does not read as you say it reads. It gives an imperfect government, no doubt, but we should be a nation of laws and not men.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:55 PM (wMXoq)

269 People are tired of this legal hair splitting.Lawyers can argue both sides ad infinitum while the country burns.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:55 PM (5Y1gW)

270 @276: If it hadn't been, the USA would not have saved the world from Nazism and Soviet Communism.

I for one like that America was saved from disintegration by Lincoln.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:56 PM (tJjm/)

271 Gold,

Intentionally omitting the key line that explains clearly the SCOTUS functions as an appellate and not a Constitutional court doesn't make your argument any less a poor work of sophistry.

Unfortunately for your argument, there are other words in the Constitution besides the ones you seek to distort.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 09:57 PM (wMXoq)

272 "Therefore, if five Supreme Court Justices end up
discovering a right to health care in the Constitution then
nullification at the state level must be an available recourse, because
allowing ObamaCare to stand simply is not an option. Posted by: The War"

Both you and I know the SCOTUS never makes rulings so broadly. The rulings are narrow and focused on text, both at the legislation at hand and of the USC, ... (and other BS like the Articles and int'l law apparently, but grant me just a rule not the exception here.)

Right to Health care:
There's a lot packed into that statement particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights. How would that pass muster under the 4th Amendment? How does a Federal Government force health care provider to provide service?

Good question, right? Let's hope some 3rd branch of government addresses that. Or a the people through some weird popular franchise.

I know, crazy stuff, right?

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:58 PM (h2t8r)

273 Czech,

I for one am disgusted that 600,000 men had to die for Mr. Lincoln's ego.

A government that requires the repeated and frequent slaughter of its citizenry in order to maintain its power is not the government our founders intended us to have. So it is true with the civil war, so it is true of Mr. Wilson's adventurism in Europe, so it is true of abortion today.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 10:00 PM (wMXoq)

274 Gold,

Roe v. Wade.

We both know the court never makes decisions so broadly. It's not like 50 million americans have had to die in order to make your judicial philosophy work.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 10:02 PM (wMXoq)

275 "Intentionally omitting the key line
that explains clearly the SCOTUS functions as an appellate and not a
Constitutional court doesn't make your argument any less a poor work of
sophistry.

Posted by: Absalom"

I omitted? I omitted?

Heh, nice one. It's almost as if you didn't provide the petard to your own hoisting.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 10:02 PM (h2t8r)

276 @278: As a practical matter, due to judicial review - a practice accepted not just by all Congresses and Presidents, but by generations of Americans - the Constitution is not just the signed and amended document bearing the name. It's ALSO the sum total of SCOTUS constitutional decisions sine the early 19th century.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 10:02 PM (tJjm/)

277 These debates tend to wander into crazy town.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 10:04 PM (5Y1gW)

278 Both you and I know the SCOTUS never makes rulings so broadly. The rulings are narrow and focused on text,
Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:58 PM (h2t8r)

Must be nice being able to afford such powerful drugs. Even tanked on ValuRite I still can't believe the SCOTUS is narrow in scope or ruling. They have and will continue to fuck us as have the other two branches. The federal government has betrayed the constitution in every capacity and is no longer a legal government.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 10:04 PM (6ftzF)

279 @283: I don't have the time or inclination to refight the Civil War with you. I might say, however, that a third or quarter of the South's population felt the Civil War was about them, not someone's ego.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 10:06 PM (tJjm/)

280 Czech,

As a practical matter where does your interpertation of the text appear in the text?

As a practical matter I am all for adding "the sum total (etc.)" to the Constitution as an amendment, if the nation wishes to do so.

And as a practical matter it currently appears nowhere in the text.

Are we to be a nation of laws, or a nation of men? A nation of laws follows the rule of law, and the supreme law of the land says nothing about "as a practical matter (etc.)"

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 10:06 PM (wMXoq)

281 Czech,

Your judicial philosophy resulted in 600,000 dead at the hand of Mr. Lincoln's legions, and 50 million dead to abortion.

You are attempting to make pragmatic/practical arguments, I am attempting to show you that your "pragmatism" is nothing but wholesale slaughter.

When one side must resort to violence in order to respond to the other side, laws are no longer ruling. That is the entire substance of this discussion: shall we be bound by the law (the text of the Constitution as it plainly reads) or by men ("practical" and "pragmatic" concerns amounting to "whoever has power is right.")

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 10:11 PM (wMXoq)

282 288 These debates tend to wander into crazy town.
Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 10:04 PM (5Y1gW)


I think you know we've reached the end of fruitfall conversation when we're arguing about the outcome of the Civil War.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 10:13 PM (tJjm/)

283 And as a practical matter it currently appears nowhere in the text.



Practical matters, well, they matter. I argued on a older thread that
the Civil Rights Act of 64 was almost certainly unconstitutional under a
strict constructionist view, but that it doesn't matter now. The polity
has accepted the Act as being consistent with the 13th and 14th
Amendments. No one could imagine that if it was proposed as an
amendment today, it wouldn't pass in a fortnight and be ratified in a
month. In fact, to argue that it's not consistent gets you considered a crank at
best.



It's kind of a common law thing.



Abortion is an example where the polity has not accept the overreach.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 10:14 PM (S5YRY)

284 Czech,

So then a conflict with force of arms settled the matter of nullification and judicial review?

That is the very definition of "might makes right" which is the very thing the Constitution was supposed to be prevent.

Is the idea that you might be wrong really so threatening to your worldview that you would rather assert that enough violence somehow establishes a nation of laws and justice? Good God. That is well and truly frightening.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 10:17 PM (wMXoq)

285 Nullification is absolutely valid based on the statements of the founding fathers, but sometimes states tried to take it a bit too far, trying to nullify bills they just didn't care for.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 22, 2011 10:17 PM (61b7k)

286 Christopher,

If they are sovereign states how can they be bound by anything except which they choose to permit to bind them? To say otherwise is to say they are not sovereign.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 10:19 PM (wMXoq)

287 Marbury v Madison
Dred Scott v Sanford
Roe v Wade

The courts are not only fallible but historically on the side of tyranny and oppression. The rights of man will not bow before any court. We paid a high price in blood to free us from one king. I would not accept 9 in black robes.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 10:19 PM (6ftzF)

288 okay, this is what I"ve been looking for.
KG and toby928 is right, the only way this is going to get resolved is to call an Article V convention.
32 states have applied for an Article V convention for the purpose of drafting a balanced budget amendment, but 12 have rescinded their applications, leaving 20 who still want an Article V convention. If we convince 14 more, then we have our convention. Here's the thing: Once the convention is established, there's no limits on what it can do in terms of drafting amendments. The amendments would still have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states though so it's not like the convention would have carte blanche power to rewrite the Constitution.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 10:20 PM (PaSAU)

289 299 I doubt 34 states could get together on anything.Unless it is well and truly too fucking late.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 10:25 PM (5Y1gW)

290 I just hope we don't end up with a constitution like Alabama's. We so feared the very thing we are seeing with the US Congress that the constitution is totally negative as far as government power goes. Everything that anyone wants to do has to be passed as an amendment. We have 825 of them.

There needs to just be a few tweaks to the US Constitution to reinforce popular sovereignty.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 10:25 PM (S5YRY)

291 Both you and I know the SCOTUS never makes rulings so broadly.

I certainly hope that Justice Kennedy would not go that way - but frankly, whether or not Anthony Kennedy thinks socialized medicine is a good idea should not have the power to overturn the quite clear Constitution. I know the four liberal justices would as long as they knew they had the five votes.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 10:27 PM (bgcml)

292 I think I said that wrong. The Alabama constituion is negative toward any power other than the central government. We were apparently worried that localities would be a law unto themselves like the Federal Congress.

BTW, from Wiki:

At 357,157 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world. (The English translation of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.)

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 10:28 PM (S5YRY)

293 300
299 I doubt 34 states could get together on anything.Unless it is well and truly too fucking late.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 10:25 PM (5Y1gW)
well actually, it would have to be 38 states but sure we ignore the bluest of the blue states, create momentum with the deep red states, then press the purplish onesbut the important thing is, we would bypass Congress completely

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 10:31 PM (PaSAU)

294 38 states are never going to agree to neuter the federal government. Some depend too much on the fed's money. Others are leftist strongholds. So take a constitutional convention of the list of good ideas.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 10:31 PM (6ftzF)

295

Normal
0


There is no need for a Constitutional Convention. The problem is the federal government has been violating the separation of power between the States and their federal government.

In Federalist Essay No. 45,
James Madison explained this separation of power.



Normal
0


The powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign
commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be
connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the
objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties,
and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the State.



Normal
0


John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist
Essays and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, explained
the separation of power in the New York State Convention debating ratification
of the proposed constitution in 1788.



Normal
0


What are the objects of our state legislatures?
Innumerable things of small moment occupy their attention; matters of a private
nature, which require much minute and local information. The objects of the
general (federal) government are not of this nature. They comprehend the
interests of the states in relation to each other, and in relation to foreign
nations.



Normal
0


The limited powers of the federal government, as
stated by Madison and Jay, pertain to external or foreign affairs and relations
between the States, while the numerous and indefinite powers reserved to the
individual States pertain to the lives, liberties and properties of the people.

Based on this separation of power, heath care falls in the sphere of power reserved to the States.

Posted by: Skylolo at January 22, 2011 10:32 PM (W2FZX)

296 The
problem is the federal government has been violating the separation of
power between the States and their federal government.
Agreed. And we correct this how?

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 10:34 PM (S5YRY)

297 38 states are never going to agree to neuter the federal government.

Not even if it means more power for them?

The bluest ones won't go along with it in any event, no. But there are only about 10-11 hardcore, irreedeemibly blue states - CA, HI, VT, MA, CT, RI, IL(?), NY(?), DE, WA, MD. The rest are at least plausibly persuadable.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 10:40 PM (PaSAU)

298 My personal opinion toby928 is...



Normal
0


The state legislatures need to adopt separation
of power resolutions and put the federal government on notice that every act,
past, present and future, outside of the separation of power will be nullified
as a violation of the original grant of power. Nullification would be across
the board and include laws passed by Congress, administrative rules and
regulations, judicial determinations, executive orders, etc.



Normal
0


Since the federal government does not exist and
his no constitutional power outside of the separation of power, nullification
is the proper remedy for any violation of the original grant of power. There is
a very important reason why the States need to invoke this strategy; it
prevents the federal judiciary from intervening.



Normal
0


The power of the federal
judiciary only extends to cases and controversies arising under the
Constitution. Any violation of the original grant of power does not
constitute a case or controversy under the Constitution. It is a violation outside
of the Constitution. Thus, the federal judiciary has no constitutional
authority to hear or adjudicate the violation.



Normal
0


When the federal government
acts outside of the original grant of power it is a political question that
goes to the nature of the compact between the several States. John Marshall,
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court stated: the judicial power cannot extend to political compacts. As stated
by Marshall, the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary cannot extend to these questions.

In the alternative, if you believe in the amendment process, the States could adopt a separation of power amendment and set the constitutional separation of power in stone. It would do the same thing as the separation of power resolution as far as nullification.

Posted by: Skylolo at January 22, 2011 10:48 PM (W2FZX)

299 So we put you down for nullification then. Now, can we do that. The subject of this thread.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 10:51 PM (S5YRY)

300

"The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit
that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of
the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies
state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree."
Except that passage says:

"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."
Then it furthermore states:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound
by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test
shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under
the United States."


Simply put, the text of the Constitution suggests that every last member of the federal and state governments should all have authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, and should "support" the Constitution in ways within their authority. For state legislators, that would mean passing laws/resolutions. Nullification didn't come up out of whole cloth. The idea that the Supreme Court would be the sole, final, binding arbiter for constitutional decisions is a modernism. If anything, the text of the Constitution gives greatest support to the President having that power (duty to faithfully execute laws + supremacy clause, his oath of office being even more explicit than the one I just quoted, and more all point in that direction), not the Supreme Court.

Posted by: sayyid412 at January 22, 2011 10:51 PM (AEU0v)

301 The rest are at least plausibly persuadable.
Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 10:40 PM (PaSAU)

Bullshit. By that standard I might plausibly fuck Christina Hendricks. It could happen. It never will, but technically it isn't impossible.

How will Congressman Dickhole pay for his new condo without Fed dollars rolling in?

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 10:52 PM (6ftzF)

302 The 'People' , the true soverigns of this nation, sent proxy 'representatives' to write, vote and create the constitution. The Constitution was then brought back to be voted on by the peoples of the various 'States'. These various States approved the Constitution which grants limited powers to the Federal govt and leaves the rest to the People of the States.

not sure of the actual verbage, but the Fed may legislate "pursuiant" of the rules laid out in the Constitution -- as granted by the People.

If the Fed breaks those rules and ignores those rules, the People have every right to nullify their unconstitutional laws.

The people created the constitution, the people ratified it, the people are the true sovereigns. If the Fed will not follow the contract that was ratified then the People will nullify it wholly.

bring it on.



Posted by: exsanguine at January 22, 2011 10:56 PM (IFUK5)

303 Fuck the Alliance.

Brown Coats forever.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 22, 2011 11:07 PM (6ftzF)

304 If they are sovereign states how can they be bound by anything except which they choose to permit to bind them?


Because no state is sovereign over the US constitution.


Here's how the founding fathers saw it:

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
-Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.
-James Madison

"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them."
-Thomas Jefferson


That last one the most obvious statement of nullification by the founders. It was based on the constitution, not state whims. The people of the US, as represented by their duly elected officials, interpret the constitution, not courts. Courts interpret laws by the constitution.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 22, 2011 11:07 PM (61b7k)

305 toby928...yes you can put me down for nullification.

If you hire a painter to paint the outside of your house and grant him the power to buy the supplies necessary to complete the task, what do you do if he takes the secondary grant of power and claims it also applies to buying supplies to paint the inside the house? Do you ask him decide the question or do you nullify his act as a violation of the original grant of power?

Same principle in my mind and no specific form is needed other than notice and justification for the actions being taken.



Posted by: Skylolo at January 22, 2011 11:10 PM (W2FZX)

306 Same principle in my mind and no specific form is needed other than notice and justification for the actions being taken.
Sensible, but can it work. Nullification has failed, and failed badly, in the past.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 11:17 PM (S5YRY)

307 and for some reason I not putting interrogatives on my questions.

???????

yeah, still works.

Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 11:18 PM (S5YRY)

308 Toby,

It is a matter of principle and not of pragmatism.

Regardless of if it can work, short of a Article V convention, it is the only recourse.

We are not liberals. We believe in law, principles, and morality. It is their sphere to invoke might-makes-right, utilitarianism, and tyranny.

If we invoke any other course of action other than the most morally right, most principally correct, we risk becoming what it is we seek to defeat.

For better or worse, nullification is the only recourse available.

Posted by: Absalom at January 22, 2011 11:24 PM (wMXoq)

309 toby928...I think it all depends on the number of States willing to step to the plate. I think we can agree that based on the number of States suing... they are getting pissed-off at the federal government's usurpation of power.

Posted by: Skylolo at January 22, 2011 11:25 PM (W2FZX)

310 Regardless of if it can work, short of a Article V convention, it is the only recourse.

I place more faith in the House to delay, and the next elections to bring a bit of a restoration than I do in an overarching Nullification. I think an Article V Convention will have to be our ultimate peaceable solution.

If we invoke any other course of action other than the most morally
right, most principally correct, we risk becoming what it is we seek to
defeat.

I disagree. Pragmatism and persuasion are the key to our system. We are not starting from a blank slate and we don't have an overwhelming majority who even understand our principles, much less that will fight for them. And make no mistake, unless the overwhelming majority of states go along with Nullification, it will mean fighting.



Posted by: toby928 at January 22, 2011 11:32 PM (S5YRY)

311
What a load of bullshit. The Supreme Court was never intended to be, and in fact CANNOT BE a check on Federal power because the Supreme Court operates at the Federal level itself. Asking the Supreme Court to defend state and popular sovereignty is putting the fox in the hen house.
Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense given the philosophical foundations of the Constitution. Gabriel Malor has apparently never read the 9th and 10th amendments and tried to make sense of them in relation to the rest of the document. The people and the states are the ultimate arbiters of whether the Federal government is behaving as it should. And the people and the states are the source of sovereignty—not the Court.

Posted by: Muppet Fart at January 22, 2011 11:48 PM (9lrjs)

312 I thought the rule was that Federal law was supreme when liberals wanted it to be supreme, and subordinate when they wanted it to be subordinate.

I'm so confused, the rules keep changing...

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at January 23, 2011 12:17 AM (bxiXv)

313 the 17th needs to be the seconds amendment ever repealed. Return the Senate to the States and many of these issues will be fixed. I would add that a Senator serves at the discretion of the State and may be recalled/replaced at anytime.
On a side note, why is it that Marbury vs Madison strikes me about the same as Ted Bundy putting himself in charge of the girls dorm?

Posted by: Rob in Katy at January 23, 2011 12:22 AM (PiTBB)

314 Hey Gabby, did you get your legal knowledge from one of those little books in a Cracker Jack box? Just kidding, I know all the top legal minds post at this site. I have seen Jackie Chiles post here many times.

Posted by: Dunce Detector at January 23, 2011 03:10 AM (9AlLz)

315 #222, the Civil War proved that Abraham Lincoln's army could beat Jefferson Davis' army. It proved nothing about the legalities of secession.

And the leadership of the US military has the instinct for rebellion of a Pekingese dog, so I wouldn't expect them to throw in with the dissidents at first. We don't have a lot of the "Seven Days In May" sort anymore.

As long as Federal employees are the arbiters of Federal power, we're fucked. I see no realistic way to fix it. It's all going to end in tears, bankruptcy, economic collapse, and other bad things.

Posted by: SGT Dan at January 23, 2011 03:12 AM (HBTr7)

316 If the constitution is the supreme law of the land then why is the border with Mexico not being defended? DADT could never be repaeled through the courts because the president has constitutional control over the military. The government is picking the laws it wishes to enforce and ignoring the ones is it dislikes purely for politics sake.
If a few states try nullification it may seem unworkable, but what if ALL of the states pursuing action in the courts also pursue nullification? With over half of the states involved it would have to be the federal government that backs down.
Pursue this path all the way.

Posted by: Sidney Allen Johnson at January 23, 2011 10:16 AM (7M8Rt)

317 Wow. Just read through the the comments. Yeah, Sunday morning and stuff. Just a thought. "Our" government is already throwing us headlong over an economic cliff. I think there is nothing that can stop the plunge at this point. Unfundeed liabilities, yada yah. HellCare will accelerate (with multiple built-in drivers) the car up the jump-ramp. We argue the finer points of what is a simple and clear document among ourselves. What shall we discuss as the car is in free-space?

Posted by: Artruen at January 23, 2011 11:03 AM (L+dBi)

318 Why did so many states nullify the REAL ID act? As recently as 2007?

This Malor guy seems like a complete idiot.

Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2011 11:39 AM (tqAns)

319 The Constitution is NOT what 5/9 of the SCOTUS says it is; it is what WE say it is.

And we say no.

If the Federales are willing to declare war on 70% of the electorate, or more than 50% of the "States", to force us all to buy something we don't want, we'll just have to respond accordingly.

But outright civil war is the very purpose of Cloward-Piven isn't it?

Posted by: Edison Carter at January 23, 2011 12:22 PM (+fzgc)

320 23
Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?

Don't worry about what Gabe suggests. The founders told you what you have the right to do, should circumstances warrant.

Posted by: right field bleachers at January 23, 2011 12:23 PM (BZEkR)

321 75

De jure, Gabriel, you're correct. De facto, if 37
states were to pass essentially identical nullification bills, we would
very quickly see Congress pass a repeal bill, and the president would
sign it. The threat of a much wider rebellion against federal overreach
would be too great even for an Obama to ignore.



Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (FeYbR)
welcome in from the cold.

Posted by: Artruen at January 23, 2011 12:45 PM (L+dBi)

322 I completely disagree with the conclusions of this article. The states are sovereign. The Unites States is a convenience. Just because the federal government has abused its power in the past does not legitimize it in the future.

Posted by: GreenPus at January 23, 2011 12:47 PM (iyIvz)

323 I can't resist a thread of good mocking.

Constitution==(Supreme Law)
Federal Govt passes unconstitutional law.
State nullifies law.

Gabriel: "State, don't be treasonous by resisting unconstitutional law, after all, we know the Constitution is the supreme law of the land!!!"

Thank goodness we have lawyers to clear this stuff up for us.

Posted by: mockmook at January 23, 2011 03:13 PM (WZMt3)

324 منتدى الترحيب والإستقبالمنتدى المناسبات والتهاني



منتدى الحوار العاممنتدى المواضيع الإسلاميةمنتدى الطب والصحةمنتدى الخواطر والنثرمنتدى القصص والرواياتمنتدى المطبخ والمأكولات



منتدى الأخبار الساخنةمنتدى عالم الرياضة



منتدى الألعاب والتساليمنتدى الضحك والوناسة



منتدى البرامج العاممنتدى برامج الجوال وملحقاتةمنتدى الألعاب الإلكترونيةمنتدى البرامج العام
حسابات مواقع الرفع | premium accountمنتدى طلبات البرامج والكراكات
منتدى البرامج العربية
منتدى دروس التعريب والتشفيرمنتدى الطلبات والمساعدة
منتدى برامج الحماية
منتدى إختبارات و نقاشات برامج الحماية
منتدى البرامج المحمولةمنتدى أنظمة التشغيلمنتدى برامج الجوال وملحقاتةمنتدى الألعاب الإلكترونية



منتدى معرض الإبداعات
منتدى طلبات التصميم
منتدى دروس برامج التصميممنتدى ملحقات المصمم



منتدى الحلول الشائعة للحاسب الآليمنتدى عيادة جهازك
الطلبات المنتهية




منتدى تطوير المنتدياتمنتدى أرشفة المنتدياتمنتدى الحماية وثغرات المنتدياتركن الطلبات والمشاكل



فريق الكتب الإلكترونيةإنتاجات فريق الكتب الإلكترونية



منتدى الترحيب والتهانيمنتدى المواضيع العامةمنتدى المواضيع الإسلاميةهمس القصيد لمتذوقي الشعر والخواطرمنتدى القصص والرواياتمنتدى عالم المرأهمنتدى عالم الرجل



منتدى الألعاب والتساليمنتدى الضحك والوناسة



شرح خصائص المنتدىمنتدى تنسيق المواضيع قبل طرحها



دورة تعريب البرامج الأحترافية
ركن الإستفسارات والمشاكل والطلبات
دورة إتقان تعريب الهاكات
ركن الإستفسارات والمشاكل والطلباتمنتديات العز



Posted by: 3zz at January 23, 2011 06:28 PM (5K9zN)

325 I mostly agree with you.
But we can all read the Constitution. Its meaning is plain.
But what if the executive does not follow it?
But what if the legislature does not follow it?
But what if the judiciary does not follow it?
We are coming to that point. Do not the states as sovereign then have the right to enforce it?
Somebody has to eventually or it is anarchy.

Posted by: Repeal at January 24, 2011 02:24 AM (8xwyL)

326 Zencart

Blog-applerolo

WordPress-Bflx

Blogetery-Bflx

Blogspot-SexyShoes

bloglines-SexyShoes

palungjit-SexyShoes

blogmas-guitarstore

guitarstore-abacf

Posted by: Zencart at January 24, 2011 04:24 AM (thSDi)

327















xp
































































4shared







youtube
google
4shared





Posted by: at June 23, 2011 08:13 AM (z/SyU)

328 According to the 2010 market survey, we can see that Canada Goose
Apparel had a hot sale and consequently Canada Goose Company made great
profits. Exactly Canada goose clothing indeed performs very well in
providing warmth and showing fashion looks. It is predicted that 2011
Canada goose clothing also has a good response in the market. How do you
think of it? Please leave your message here. Exactly you will also
speak highly of Canada goose. Perhaps you could buy canada goose and
experience canada goose parka , which will help you to learn well about this brand.(yang)

Posted by: canada goose parka at July 02, 2011 05:13 AM (Mqo+u)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0573 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0169 seconds, 337 records returned.
Page size 226 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat