Nullification: Can you Hear the People of South Carolina and California Sing?

[LoneLaugher]

No problem.

Are there Republicans who are not net payers of Federal Income Taxes.........who are receiving disaster relief?

The answer is yes. And liberals are FUCKING HAPPY TO KNOW IT.

That is the difference. Simply put.......LIBERALS CARE MORE ABOUT MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE FED, CLOTHED, HOUSED, EDUCATED, EMPLOYED AND HEALTHY than they do about a few percentage points of profit being sent to Washington.

Day after day......we hear how EVERYONE is corrupt...and THEY ALL bow down to corporate interests. Sure.......they all do.

But the liberal ones do so with an eye toward helping the least among us.....even if it inconveniences those who have prospered. This is the fact of it.
Just listen to the hard-asses in the GOP talk about disaster relief. It is unreal.


Lets assume that THEY ALL suck corporate lobbyist dick.

Ask yourself.......where does your party stand on these issues:

Do they want more people or fewer people to vote?
Do they want all people to have equal rights in all matters?
Do they have empathy for the poor....or do they despise them?
Do they think we have an impact on the environment or not?
Do they want all Americans to be healthy or just those who can afford it?
Do they think ALL childeren can learn...or are we wasting time on some?

There are more......but you get the idea.

If you think they care more about people then you're a partisan. None of them care about anybody other than themselves. They simply put on airs to keep themselves in power.

It is a fact that most of those in high levels of government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are far more likely to be invested in their own power, prestige, influence, and acquisition of personal wealth than they are going to be concerned about anything else. I am afraid that is true of both political parties and the few independents. That does not mean that some are not more savvy in how to stimulate an economy, etc. or what is more prudent policy than others are savvy, but that is a different subject.

But I do want more people to vote, but I want those who have educated themselves on the people and issues to vote, and not those who are paid to vote or told a name to vote for or who vote illegally.

I want equal rights for all, but I do not want rights to require one person to provide for another except within the nuclear family. A right should otherwise require no participation or contribution from another.

I believe a moral society cares for the truly helpless and gives a hand up to those who need it. I believe a moral society does not promote or encourage poverty but, to quote Ben Franklin, does its best to lead or drive people out of it.

I believe a moral people does not do environmental violence and that conservatives and liberals equally want clean water, air, and soil and aesthetic beauty. I also believe that the greatest thing we can do to encourage people to care for the environment is to encourage affluence. The more affluent people are the more they have the leisure and resources to care and do something about it.

I believe it is up to every individual to take responsibility for his/her own health and it is not our responsibility to dictate to others what they are required to do for their health.

I believe a moral people cares about the educationally challenged and helps as it can. But I believe it is as wrong to take resources and time away from those who can and will learn and assign it to those who can't or won't as it is to neglect those who aren't necessarily the 'brightest and best'. It is noboy's responsibility to see that my children are educated but mine. If I can form a social contract with others to cooperate together in the process, that should also be our collective choice. But I don't want the federal government having any say in what my child will or will not be taught.

There is a lot more, but I'm sure some will get the idea. . . .

The bullshit began at the hi lighted section. Did it ever stop? Ask someone who read the rest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nullification: Can you Hear the People of South Carolina and California Sing?

No.

We just see the OP and others on the right exhibit their ignorance.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause merely begs the question.

Only if you keep going around in circles.

Nullification has been rejected by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.

The Supremacy Clause is a circular argument, so there's no other way to go. The issue at hand is whether a law is constitutional, and the Supremacy Clause merely states that constitutional laws are supreme. Well, that's circular.

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Only if you keep going around in circles.

Nullification has been rejected by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.

The Supremacy Clause is a circular argument, so there's no other way to go. The issue at hand is whether a law is constitutional, and the Supremacy Clause merely states that constitutional laws are supreme. Well, that's circular.

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

Just repeating the same thing over and over in different words isn't really a conversation.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Only if you keep going around in circles.

Nullification has been rejected by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.

The Supremacy Clause is a circular argument, so there's no other way to go. The issue at hand is whether a law is constitutional, and the Supremacy Clause merely states that constitutional laws are supreme. Well, that's circular.

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

Everything Hitler did was legal too, don't' forget!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Hitler! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!

 

[Foxfyre]

If you think they care more about people then you're a partisan. None of them care about anybody other than themselves. They simply put on airs to keep themselves in power.

It is a fact that most of those in high levels of government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are far more likely to be invested in their own power, prestige, influence, and acquisition of personal wealth than they are going to be concerned about anything else. I am afraid that is true of both political parties and the few independents. That does not mean that some are not more savvy in how to stimulate an economy, etc. or what is more prudent policy than others are savvy, but that is a different subject.

But I do want more people to vote, but I want those who have educated themselves on the people and issues to vote, and not those who are paid to vote or told a name to vote for or who vote illegally.

I want equal rights for all, but I do not want rights to require one person to provide for another except within the nuclear family. A right should otherwise require no participation or contribution from another.

I believe a moral society cares for the truly helpless and gives a hand up to those who need it. I believe a moral society does not promote or encourage poverty but, to quote Ben Franklin, does its best to lead or drive people out of it.

I believe a moral people does not do environmental violence and that conservatives and liberals equally want clean water, air, and soil and aesthetic beauty. I also believe that the greatest thing we can do to encourage people to care for the environment is to encourage affluence. The more affluent people are the more they have the leisure and resources to care and do something about it.

I believe it is up to every individual to take responsibility for his/her own health and it is not our responsibility to dictate to others what they are required to do for their health.

I believe a moral people cares about the educationally challenged and helps as it can. But I believe it is as wrong to take resources and time away from those who can and will learn and assign it to those who can't or won't as it is to neglect those who aren't necessarily the 'brightest and best'. It is noboy's responsibility to see that my children are educated but mine. If I can form a social contract with others to cooperate together in the process, that should also be our collective choice. But I don't want the federal government having any say in what my child will or will not be taught.

There is a lot more, but I'm sure some will get the idea. . . .

The bullshit began at the hi lighted section. Did it ever stop? Ask someone who read the rest.

Okay, then we'll put you down as one who supports those who are ignorant, bribed, coerced or who are not registered to vote going to the polls to vote. That is what many believe has kept the Democratic party in power all this time. Maybe they're right if there are a whole lot more like you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It is a fact that most of those in high levels of government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, are far more likely to be invested in their own power, prestige, influence, and acquisition of personal wealth than they are going to be concerned about anything else. I am afraid that is true of both political parties and the few independents. That does not mean that some are not more savvy in how to stimulate an economy, etc. or what is more prudent policy than others are savvy, but that is a different subject.

But I do want more people to vote, but I want those who have educated themselves on the people and issues to vote, and not those who are paid to vote or told a name to vote for or who vote illegally.

I want equal rights for all, but I do not want rights to require one person to provide for another except within the nuclear family. A right should otherwise require no participation or contribution from another.

I believe a moral society cares for the truly helpless and gives a hand up to those who need it. I believe a moral society does not promote or encourage poverty but, to quote Ben Franklin, does its best to lead or drive people out of it.

I believe a moral people does not do environmental violence and that conservatives and liberals equally want clean water, air, and soil and aesthetic beauty. I also believe that the greatest thing we can do to encourage people to care for the environment is to encourage affluence. The more affluent people are the more they have the leisure and resources to care and do something about it.

I believe it is up to every individual to take responsibility for his/her own health and it is not our responsibility to dictate to others what they are required to do for their health.

I believe a moral people cares about the educationally challenged and helps as it can. But I believe it is as wrong to take resources and time away from those who can and will learn and assign it to those who can't or won't as it is to neglect those who aren't necessarily the 'brightest and best'. It is noboy's responsibility to see that my children are educated but mine. If I can form a social contract with others to cooperate together in the process, that should also be our collective choice. But I don't want the federal government having any say in what my child will or will not be taught.

There is a lot more, but I'm sure some will get the idea. . . .

The bullshit began at the hi lighted section. Did it ever stop? Ask someone who read the rest.

Okay, then we'll put you down as one who supports those who are ignorant, bribed, coerced or who are not registered to vote going to the polls to vote. That is what many believe has kept the Democratic party in power all this time. Maybe they're right if there are a whole lot more like you.

Oh? Many believe that? Who are you, Brian Kilmeade?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause is a circular argument, so there's no other way to go. The issue at hand is whether a law is constitutional, and the Supremacy Clause merely states that constitutional laws are supreme. Well, that's circular.

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

Everything Hitler did was legal too, don't' forget!

Really? So if he'd lived, he'd have been found not guilty at Nuremberg?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause is a circular argument, so there's no other way to go. The issue at hand is whether a law is constitutional, and the Supremacy Clause merely states that constitutional laws are supreme. Well, that's circular.

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

Everything Hitler did was legal too, don't' forget!

So is that the line I should use in response to people who think nullification is legal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause is a circular argument, so there's no other way to go. The issue at hand is whether a law is constitutional, and the Supremacy Clause merely states that constitutional laws are supreme. Well, that's circular.

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

Just repeating the same thing over and over in different words isn't really a conversation.

I'm reminding you how the Constitution works. Your fantasies about how it should work notwithstanding.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

Just repeating the same thing over and over in different words isn't really a conversation.

I'm reminding you how the Constitution works. Your fantasies about how it should work notwithstanding.

You exposed your inner totalitarian.

Also please cite where it says in the Constitution that all laws are Constitutional.

Please inform us of the significance of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are under that theory as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

So if Congress made a law respecting the establishment of a religion, it would be constitutional, since all laws are constitutional?

Also, you forgot the other four Tribunals which can judge the Constitutionality of a law:

Grand Jury

Jury

State Governments

Local Governments

 

[NYcarbineer]

I pulled this gem out of the OP:

b. The failure of federal or state authorities to obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County may be met with lethal force from either the local police or the person to be detained or arrested.

lol, the above is attempting to do what? legalize the killing of federal or state officer attempting to arrest a criminal suspect?

Man, you people aren't off the deep end, you're out beyond the buoys marking the deep end.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I pulled this gem out of the OP:

b. The failure of federal or state authorities to obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County may be met with lethal force from either the local police or the person to be detained or arrested.

lol, the above is attempting to do what? legalize the killing of federal or state officer attempting to arrest a criminal suspect?

Man, you people aren't off the deep end, you're out beyond the buoys marking the deep end.

But your beloved Supreme Court even upheld that clause:

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

VICTORY!!!​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just repeating the same thing over and over in different words isn't really a conversation.

I'm reminding you how the Constitution works. Your fantasies about how it should work notwithstanding.

You exposed your inner totalitarian.

Also please cite where it says in the Constitution that all laws are Constitutional.

Please inform us of the significance of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are under that theory as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

So if Congress made a law respecting the establishment of a religion, it would be constitutional, since all laws are constitutional?

A federal law is constitutional until the court rules otherwise, no matter what assemblyman Jubilation T. Cornpone or whoever from the fantasy land of nullification might think.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All federal laws are constitutional unless challenged and struck down in court,

at least in the eyes of the law.

Just repeating the same thing over and over in different words isn't really a conversation.

I'm reminding you how the Constitution works. Your fantasies about how it should work notwithstanding.

You're reminding me of your opinion about how the Constitution works, of which I needed no reminding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I pulled this gem out of the OP:

b. The failure of federal or state authorities to obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County may be met with lethal force from either the local police or the person to be detained or arrested.

lol, the above is attempting to do what? legalize the killing of federal or state officer attempting to arrest a criminal suspect?

Man, you people aren't off the deep end, you're out beyond the buoys marking the deep end.

But your beloved Supreme Court even upheld that clause:

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

[/center][size = 3]VICTORY!!![/size][/center]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrlYV1v60LY]Human Victory - Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness [music] - YouTube[/ame]

And you think that a federal officer failing to have a note from the local sheriff because some cockeyed legislators in some county said he had to is going to stand as an illegal arrest justifying homicide?

lol, you're mentally deranged.

 

[Wry Catcher]

SEDITION:

"Exciting discontent against the government, or resistent to lawful authority. To Attempt by word, deed or writing to promote public disorder or induce riot, rebellion or civil war. State v. Shepherd 177 Mo 205, 76 SW 79."

Portion of the definition from Ballentine's Law Dictionary, pg. 1155

It will go the same way the Alien and Sedition Acts went in 1798 - nullified by the States, when the feds tried to enforce it.

You're nuts. But I guess even you know that at some level.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You're nuts. But I guess even you know that at some level.

You're a slave, serf and subject; but I guess you even desire that on some level.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

A federal law is constitutional until the court rules otherwise, no matter what assemblyman Jubilation T. Cornpone or whoever from the fantasy land of nullification might think.

What if a Jury acquits the defendant because they don't agree with the law? The Courts are powerless in that situation...