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

[Wry Catcher]

A bit more for 2ndAmendment and/or his buddies in Suffolk County to chew on:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having
knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals
and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same
to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the
governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is
guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

18 USC CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES

Enforcing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is treason? Link please. Also, the Constitution trumps that law, so only those parts of it, not repugnant to the Constitution, would actually be applicable:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

And then you got that pesky 5th Amendment to deal with:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

And then that god damned Sixth Amendment that protects State's rights and a Jury trial in that State, and more specifically that County:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

So apparently you think the federal government will succeed in prosecuting people of Suffolk County for treason or sedition, while being judged by their peers (other people from Suffolk County), who share the exact same sentiments? Maybe 1/500 cases, if the feds are lucky and Jury is brain dead.

All I "said" was to quote the law, and in my career I met a number of jail house lawyers, like you they thought they knew better than anyone in the Criminal Justice System.

 

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

Feel free to cite me all of the cases where state or local nullification of federal laws were upheld.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

That's called jury nullification and only applies to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

the problem you're having is NYcarbineer is dealing in reality and you are not. I don't mean that as a slight, i mean it in the manner that nullification as an idea is decided. in reality, whether you agree with it or not, the issue is dead. the courts, up to and often ultimately the supreme court, decide issues of constitutionality and until such a time as a law is declared unconstitutional by them it is assumed to be constitutional and valid.

that is the way the system works. you may disagree with it, you may believe that it is wrong and that the founders would be on your side. none of that matters.

reality is the supremacy clause makes any nullifcation efforts by state or local entities moot.

 

[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...

That's called jury nullification and only applies to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Does jury nullification make you angry?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Feel free to cite me all of the cases where state or local nullification of federal laws were upheld.

Unless the federal government used armed troops to enforce their laws, the state and local nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts, 1809 Embargo, Marijuana laws, DOMA, gun laws, etc, were upheld by federal acquiescence. There's also countless other examples.

Show me when nullification hasn't been upheld? Also, the use of armed force doesn't actually count as upholding the law, no more than a group of men gang raping a woman, armed force only coerces the aggrieved into submission.

Show me one instance where nullification was actually denied legally.

The best you'll find is the federal courts saying its not legal. Go figure... it's not like the federal courts are part of federal government...what's that Maxim of Law again...No Entity shall be the Judge of its own Case...

 

[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.

the problem you're having is NYcarbineer is dealing in reality and you are not. I don't mean that as a slight, i mean it in the manner that nullification as an idea is decided. in reality, whether you agree with it or not, the issue is dead. the courts, up to and often ultimately the supreme court, decide issues of constitutionality and until such a time as a law is declared unconstitutional by them it is assumed to be constitutional and valid.

that is the way the system works. you may disagree with it, you may believe that it is wrong and that the founders would be on your side. none of that matters.

reality is the supremacy clause makes any nullifcation efforts by state or local entities moot.

Well then, the feds better storm California to overturn their legalization of marijuana. They better storm other blue states to overturn their nullification of DOMA...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

Nullification is the peaceful withdrawal of Consent. When a contract is violated, the other party has the right to null and void that contract. The Constitutions is LITERALLY a contract (social contract). When the federal government abuses and usurps that contract, the people have the right to alter it, or abolish it. Some even argue they have an obligation to alter or abolish it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Here:

[T]here is a "strong presumption of constitutionality due to an Act of Congress, especially when it turns on what is `reasonable…’ And it is true as well, as the Court observes, that a presumption of constitutionality attaches to every Act of Congress.

United States v. Watson

All laws are presumed Constitutional until a court rules otherwise. This is a fundamental tenet of the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

 

[ogibillm]

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

the problem you're having is NYcarbineer is dealing in reality and you are not. I don't mean that as a slight, i mean it in the manner that nullification as an idea is decided. in reality, whether you agree with it or not, the issue is dead. the courts, up to and often ultimately the supreme court, decide issues of constitutionality and until such a time as a law is declared unconstitutional by them it is assumed to be constitutional and valid.

that is the way the system works. you may disagree with it, you may believe that it is wrong and that the founders would be on your side. none of that matters.

reality is the supremacy clause makes any nullifcation efforts by state or local entities moot.

Well then, the feds better storm California to overturn their legalization of marijuana. They better storm other blue states to overturn their nullification of DOMA...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

Nullification is the peaceful withdrawal of Consent.

yeah, you don't get to do that. in for a penny, in for a pound, and that issue was decided back in the 19th century.

civil war aside, a thing can be illegal under federal law and legal under state. that's not a conflict. just means that if you're caught with your medicinal marijuana in california by a state trooper you won't face charges, but if you're caught by federal law enforcement you will.

how is this a hard concept?

and i don't think you understand what doma is or does, so that part of your post looks particularly idiotic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Feel free to cite me all of the cases where state or local nullification of federal laws were upheld.

Unless the federal government used armed troops to enforce their laws, the state and local nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts, 1809 Embargo, Marijuana laws, DOMA, gun laws, etc, were upheld by federal acquiescence. There's also countless other examples.

Show me when nullification hasn't been upheld? Also, the use of armed force doesn't actually count as upholding the law, no more than a group of men gang raping a woman, armed force only coerces the aggrieved into submission.

Show me one instance where nullification was actually denied legally.

The best you'll find is the federal courts saying its not legal. Go figure... it's not like the federal courts are part of federal government...what's that Maxim of Law again...No Entity shall be the Judge of its own Case...

This, from the CATO People:

Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All | Cato Institute

Don't read the headline, read the entire article. It's short.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

the problem you're having is NYcarbineer is dealing in reality and you are not. I don't mean that as a slight, i mean it in the manner that nullification as an idea is decided. in reality, whether you agree with it or not, the issue is dead. the courts, up to and often ultimately the supreme court, decide issues of constitutionality and until such a time as a law is declared unconstitutional by them it is assumed to be constitutional and valid.

that is the way the system works. you may disagree with it, you may believe that it is wrong and that the founders would be on your side. none of that matters.

reality is the supremacy clause makes any nullifcation efforts by state or local entities moot.

Well then, the feds better storm California to overturn their legalization of marijuana. They better storm other blue states to overturn their nullification of DOMA...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

Nullification is the peaceful withdrawal of Consent. When a contract is violated, the other party has the right to null and void that contract. The Constitutions is LITERALLY a contract (social contract). When the federal government abuses and usurps that contract, the people have the right to alter it, or abolish it. Some even argue they have an obligation to alter or abolish it.

There is no such thing as ‘nullification,’ it’s a pathetic contrivance of the right.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

yeah, you don't get to do that. in for a penny, in for a pound, and that issue was decided back in the 19th century.

How was it decided in the 19th Century?

Armed force?

If a bully beats up a kid on the playground because he was wearing yellow shoes, does that justify the bully?

Nullification was taught and accepted as the mainstream political theory for several decades after the Civil War, in all of the states.

It was during the 1930's, when the International Banks manufactured the Great Depression and hijacked our government that States Rights went out the window... for their advantage.

Today you are reaping the rewards of the 17th Amendment (1913).

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution

All decision made the federal judiciary pre-1913 about nullification must be discarded in today's atmosphere because of the 17th Amendment, which radically shifted the balance of power from the States to the Feds. The judiciary and Andrew Jackson may have been completely or partially right in their assessment of nullification, but that was before the 17th Amendment.

Originally Senators were selected by the State Legislature, as a check on the federal government. Today Senators are bought by corporate money, and the people have little to no choice, of who is nominated or what they actually do for them.

So when you kids cite these pre-1913 Cases, make sure you equip a parachute, because the drop down the rabbit hole is extraordinarily deep.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

99% of the laws passed by congress are unconstitutional and should be voided. All congress has are the LISTED powers in the constitution. The tenth amendment makes that clear.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

99% of the laws passed by congress are unconstitutional and should be voided. All congress has are the LISTED powers in the constitution. The tenth amendment makes that clear.

Good attempt, but I already tried to get through to them with long extensive posts. We've pretty much resorted to one liners and name calling at this point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

99% of the laws passed by congress are unconstitutional and should be voided. All congress has are the LISTED powers in the constitution. The tenth amendment makes that clear.

By whom?

The only thing made clear is your ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

California nullifies NDAA

South Carolina nullifies Obamacare

One more Day 'til Revolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IddP8AAIGTQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v582kPp43Mg

Go to your local/County Legislature asap (next Public Hearing). Propose this bill:

Title of Bill:
Federal and State Tyranny Prevention Act

Be It Enacted By The Suffolk County Legislature

Preamble:

We, the people of Suffolk County, do solemnly declare that the Creator, not Government, has bestowed each individual with certain unalienable rights, and that each individual is sovereign, free to communicate, interact and contract with other sovereigns, and by nature are free to defend themselves from all threats to their life, liberty and property.
The people of Suffolk County also reject the principle of unlimited submission to their federal government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of the Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they ratified a federal government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State and County to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: and that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

However, New York State has failed in her responsibility to shield and protect her citizens from the usurpations of the federal government, and has, itself, assumed powers that are prohibited to New York State through the New York State Constitution and has both endorsed and enforced the tyrannical actions of the Federal Government. Therefore the Suffolk County Legislature must erect a bulwark shielding her citizens against the tyranny of the wicked and malicious federal and state governments.

Section I:
a. In respect to the arbitrary and monstrous nature of the Patriot Act (and other similar laws), both the United States and New York State are denied the ability to spy on any citizen of Suffolk County, unless they obtain a Warrant, supported by Oath or affirmation, particularly describing the things to be searched or seized. This Warrant must be presented to the Sheriff of Suffolk County, so that he or she has knowledge of the existence and nature of the Warrant, and may challenge the constitutional validity of the Warrant in the appropriate Suffolk County Court.

b. Any evidence obtained by the United States or New York State that circumvents the above processes, shall be inadmissible in court, and Suffolk County will shield its citizens from being arrested or detained or summoned before a state or federal tribunal, on evidence that is obtained contrary to this SECTION.

d. A federal or state Warrant that is challenged in a Suffolk County Court (by the sheriff) is rendered inoperative and is considered suspended, unless the appropriate Suffolk County Court approves the Warrant.

e. Local police and authorities reserve the right to exempt themselves from executing a federal or state search, regardless of the validity of the Warrant.

Section II:
a. In respect to the heinous implications of the National Defense Authorization Act (and other similar laws), the United States is denied the ability to kidnap any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County. The United States must obtain written permission from the Sheriff of Suffolk County before detaining or arresting an individual within Suffolk County, for any crime or violation of law thereof.

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.

Section III:
a. Suffolk County recognizes the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as a legitimate article of the Constitution; however, the Constitution does not authorize the use of paper fiat currency, therefore Suffolk County will cease to enforce the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, unless the federal taxes are being collected in Lawful gold or silver Coin, as prescribed by Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution.

b. Suffolk County will also shield any of its inhabitants from detention or arrest or being forced to appear before a federal or state tribunal for failing to pay federal or state taxes in any Thing other than gold or silver Coin.

c. All federal taxes will be collected by Suffolk County and held in a Federal Escrow Tax Account, as the Constitution of United States does not grant the Federal Government the power to collect Federal Taxes or delegate that power to any other agency. As such, the IRS is prohibited from operating within Suffolk County immediately following the enactment of this bill.

b. All states taxes will be collected by Suffolk County and held in a State Escrow Tax Account.

Section IV:
a. Suffolk County does not recognize that the United States is being Invaded, or is experiencing Rebellion; therefore in accordance to Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended for any person within the boundaries of Suffolk County.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/296599-does-the-irs-need-oversight.html#post7315808 Linked To Original Post. Link Each Copy and Paste to It's Source. Don't Post Entire Piece. -Intense

South Carolina could become the first state to nullify Obamacare - Politics & Policy - Catholic Online

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-...ate-tyranny-nullification-act/616811438348749



What now Lakhota, and his gang of Statist goons, what now fuckers?

Well, the last time this kind of thing was tried, the people trying it pretty well got their asses kicked. This time it won't get that far.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

99% of the laws passed by congress are unconstitutional and should be voided. All congress has are the LISTED powers in the constitution. The tenth amendment makes that clear.

Good attempt, but I already tried to get through to them with long extensive posts. We've pretty much resorted to one liners and name calling at this point.

Devoid of any case law.

Feel free to show us where the Supreme Court overturned Cooper v. Aaron, for example.

 

[ogibillm]

99% of the laws passed by congress are unconstitutional and should be voided. All congress has are the LISTED powers in the constitution. The tenth amendment makes that clear.

your belief that they should be voided does not make it so.

that is just your opinion, and unless you are a federal judge your opinion on the matter is worth as much as an empty sack (minus the sack of course)

 

[EriktheRed]

"do solemnly declare that the Creator, not Government"

hahahah

so, they're installing a theocracy now. Iran would be proud of them!

...

Apparently you've missed the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Is Government the Creator?

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. Pretty sure you've been told this before.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. Pretty sure you've been told this before.

If it's not a legal document, then we must still be under the rule of the Crown?