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

[EriktheRed]

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?

Are you serious?

 

[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?

Are you serious?

You just told me the Declaration of Independence, which was legal under the Magna Charta, is not a legal document.

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 who later became our third President. This founding document was telling the King of England the colonies are severing their political ties and becoming a new nation. They have listed their reasons why they are leaving the British empire. The long train of abuses after peaceful petitions have failed. The Declaration is legal without question steeped in legal and biblical precedent. They appealed to the supreme ruler of the universe,the final authority in the human events of men.

The reason why this is legal is because it is based on the Magna Carta. When the Bank of England controled the British Crown. They brought an unjust monetary system upon the colonies. The Magna Carta clearly states clearly, usury is illegal. The bank of England was issuing the currency at interest which crippled the economy in the colonies. Also trial by jury and the right to habeas corpus were denied in place of star chamber proceedings. The Declaration of Independence is rooted in English Common Law that derives from the Magna Carta itself.

The Declaration of Independence was a notice to King George III that he has broken the contract with the colonist violating the Magna Carta. That declared the contract null and void by the king with usurpations violating the Magna Carta with monetary policy under the control of the Bank of England to the violations of people’s rights. The Magna Carta is the source of the Declaration of Independence which is still a legal document of the United kingdom.\

Also, don't' forget the state Constitution of each of the original 13 colonies contains a provision that preserves all parts of the Magna Charta not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or their respective State.

Constitution of New York:

[Common law and acts of the colonial and state legislatures]

§14. Such parts of the common law, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-five, and the resolutions of the congress of the said colony, and of the convention of the State of New York, in force on the twentieth day of April, one thousand seven hundred seventy-seven, which have not since expired, or been repealed or altered; and such acts of the legislature of this state as are now in force, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such alterations as the legislature shall make concerning the same. But all such parts of the common law, and such of the said acts, or parts thereof, as are repugnant to this constitution, are hereby abrogated. (Formerly §16. Renumbered and amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

These provision are paramount, otherwise England could try to reassert influence over the original 13 States, on the grounds that the Declaration of Independence is an illegal document, or no longer applies, since the manga Charta was revoked by those former colonies.

 

[EriktheRed]

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

Are you serious?

You just told me the Declaration of Independence, which was legal under the Magna Charta, is not a legal document.

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 who later became our third President. This founding document was telling the King of England the colonies are severing their political ties and becoming a new nation. They have listed their reasons why they are leaving the British empire. The long train of abuses after peaceful petitions have failed. The Declaration is legal without question steeped in legal and biblical precedent. They appealed to the supreme ruler of the universe,the final authority in the human events of men.

The reason why this is legal is because it is based on the Magna Carta. When the Bank of England controled the British Crown. They brought an unjust monetary system upon the colonies. The Magna Carta clearly states clearly, usury is illegal. The bank of England was issuing the currency at interest which crippled the economy in the colonies. Also trial by jury and the right to habeas corpus were denied in place of star chamber proceedings. The Declaration of Independence is rooted in English Common Law that derives from the Magna Carta itself.

The Declaration of Independence was a notice to King George III that he has broken the contract with the colonist violating the Magna Carta. That declared the contract null and void by the king with usurpations violating the Magna Carta with monetary policy under the control of the Bank of England to the violations of people’s rights. The Magna Carta is the source of the Declaration of Independence which is still a legal document of the United kingdom.

Well, sir, I'll admit you have given a good argument how at least in one sense the D of I can be considered a legal document.


However, in terms of legal challenges being discussed I'm still pretty sure that citing the Declaration isn't going to get one very far in court.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

However, in terms of legal challenges being discussed I'm still pretty sure that citing the Declaration isn't going to get one very far in court.

Not in the current Statist dominated environment, you are correct.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

You know what, you ought to leave the United States. You don't like rules, laws, law enforcement or most Americans. So get the fuck out and find some place other than the U.S of America to live.

 

[ogibillm]

However, in terms of legal challenges being discussed I'm still pretty sure that citing the Declaration isn't going to get one very far in court.

Not in the current Statist dominated environment, you are correct.

it's not law. do you not understand that?

 

[EriktheRed]

However, in terms of legal challenges being discussed I'm still pretty sure that citing the Declaration isn't going to get one very far in court.

Not in the current Statist dominated environment, you are correct.

I'm pretty sure even in an earlier time in this country's history more to your liking it still wouldn't work.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You know what, you ought to leave the United States. You don't like rules, laws, law enforcement or most Americans. So get the fuck out and find some place other than the U.S of America to live.

As more and more Americans feel the iron fist of the corporate oligarchy, which you worship, they will embrace these doctrines.

In the meantime, the Constitution is not up for a popular vote.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

However, in terms of legal challenges being discussed I'm still pretty sure that citing the Declaration isn't going to get one very far in court.

Not in the current Statist dominated environment, you are correct.

I'm pretty sure even in an earlier time in this country's history more to your liking it still wouldn't work.

A direct citation of the DoI would have also been rejected in the past, yes you are correct; however, there would have been no need to cite the DoI because the majority of the judges and other officials inherently believed in those principles to begin with.

It's like Jury nullification. It was widely accepted and known that Juries had the right to nullify, so known, that there was no need to mention it.

Whereas the early Supreme Court declared Juries had the right to judge both the laws and the facts, the current Courts dismiss is as an "aberration" of law, that is most unfortunately irreversible.

This is again similar to the 17th Amendment argument and early federal judicial opinions on Nullification. The 17th Amendment erased the foundation of those ancient decisions.

--------------------
Even though I personally agree with Thomas Jefferson, one could make very compelling argument that Nullification WAS illegal pre-1913, because the States CONSENTED to federal legislation by selecting Senators to represent their State. Today the States and Counties have neither recourse nor redress because of the 17th Amendment, therefore Consent of the component Members of the Union must be obtained through acquiescence, and withdrawn through nullification.\
--------------------

Adding to this:
When the States no longer have recourse or redress, Federalism ceases to exist, and the government assumes a Unitary structure, which is how you are all interpreting the Supremacy Clause.

The only mode of recourse/redress that remains is a Convention of 2/3 of the States to amend the Constitution, which would make it unlikely for the States to refer to it as a common measure of redress, as it must then go through a 3/4 approval + a lot of bullshit. Only the most egregious transgressions of the federal government would ever be addressed by this procedure, and it would often fail to meet the ratification requirement.

The logical fallacy of course, with the above mode of redress, is what if the Federal Government ignores the new Amendment? The Amendment process would be no more useful than a complaint hotline; how would the States react? Have another Constitutional Convention? Obviously not. They would have to resort to nullification, and be prepared to use force to defend themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Re the legality of the Declaration of Independence, the Founders and those who signed onto it considered it completely legal. Sufficiently legal that they risked their fortunes, livelihoods, future, and very lives to implement it.

King George and his court of course considered it illegal. And they did their damndest to put down the rebellion.

Such differences of opinion have existed in the affairs of humankind probably since the establishment of governments.

In fact there was a formal debate between U.K. lawyers versus U.S. lawyers on this very topic. The U.K. lawyers took the position that the Declaration was illegal. The U.S. lawyers took the position that it was legal.

The U.K. argument:

The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.

The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one - no taxation without representation - was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.

The U.S. argument:

The Declaration is unquestionably "legal". Under basic principles of "Natural Law", government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.

The legality of the Declaration and its validity is proven by subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just, based on the fundamental principles of equality and self-determination now reflected in the UN Charter.

BBC News - Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?

Obviously the Founders won that argument when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. It would probably depend on the nationality of judge who would win the modern debate.

But on the question of legality, we have to ask ourselves whether the people of South Africa right to rise up and challenge the law of apartheid? Were the Texans at the Alamo right or was Santa Anna right to put down the rebellion? Was the world right to oppose a militant Japan and Germany who were both operating within the law of their respective nations? Were the Bolsheviks right to oppose the Czars? Were the Chinese students right in Tiananmen Square or was the Chinese government right to put down the 'illegal' demonstration?

Legality is relative when it comes to convictions of right and wrong. And when those who oppose the law win, then it is usually the opposition itself that becomes legal. Sometimes opposing concepts of legality are fought out in the courts. Sometimes on the battlefield. But let's don't think for a minute that everything that is the law must stand unopposed simply because it is the law.

 

[oldfart]

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.

“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.”

This is the kind of error that happens when people quote a political blog "explaining" a Supreme Court case rather than reading the decision itself. The case was decided in 1900 and the case was remanded for retrial. The sole issue was the trial judge's charge to the jury. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge erred in stating in the charge that the person that was subject to the disputed attempted arrest had "no right" to resist such attempt. The above quote has been skillfully edited to change the meaning of the Supreme Court decision to the exact opposite of the real decision.

The relevant part of the decision, unedited, reads:

Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but 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 such right. What might 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.

The right wing website implies that there is a right to kill law enforcement officers if you believe there is a defect in the arrest. This simply is not true. At most, a citizen has a right to use "such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest".

Anyone relying on this website's interpretation is most likely to end up in prison for the rest of their life or dead. Passing on this kind of nonsense gets people killed. Repeating this dangerous drivel is reckless almost beyond belief.

 

[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.

This is the kind of error that happens when people quote a political blog "explaining" a Supreme Court case rather than reading the decision itself. The case was decided in 1900 and the case was remanded for retrial. The sole issue was the trial judge's charge to the jury. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge erred in stating in the charge that the person that was subject to the disputed attempted arrest had "no right" to resist such attempt. The above quote has been skillfully edited to change the meaning of the Supreme Court decision to the exact opposite of the real decision.

The relevant part of the decision, unedited, reads:

Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but 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 such right. What might 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.

The right wing website implies that there is a right to kill law enforcement officers if you believe there is a defect in the arrest. This simply is not true. At most, a citizen has a right to use "such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest".

Anyone relying on this website's interpretation is most likely to end up in prison for the rest of their life or dead. Passing on this kind of nonsense gets people killed. Repeating this dangerous drivel is reckless almost beyond belief.

I can guarantee if a state (like California) or County passed law nullifying NDAA, authorizing the use of lethal force against the feds for kidnapping you, the lethal force part would be considered necessary to resist having a black bag thrown over your head and being imprisoned for the rest of your life without a trial or charge against you.

Better to be Judged by 12 than carried by 6 FBI agents to Gitmo.

 

[oldfart]

There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided....

But on the question of legality, we have to ask ourselves whether the people of South Africa right to rise up and challenge the law of apartheid? Were the Texans at the Alamo right or was Santa Anna right to put down the rebellion? Was the world right to oppose a militant Japan and Germany who were both operating within the law of their respective nations? Were the Bolsheviks right to oppose the Czars? Were the Chinese students right in Tiananmen Square or was the Chinese government right to put down the 'illegal' demonstration?

Legality is relative when it comes to convictions of right and wrong. And when those who oppose the law win, then it is usually the opposition itself that becomes legal. Sometimes opposing concepts of legality are fought out in the courts. Sometimes on the battlefield. But let's don't think for a minute that everything that is the law must stand unopposed simply because it is the law.

Lincoln said it best:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

 

[oldfart]

I can guarantee if a state (like California) or County passed law nullifying NDAA, authorizing the use of lethal force against the feds for kidnapping you, the lethal force part would be considered necessary to resist having a black bag thrown over your head and being imprisoned for the rest of your life without a trial or charge against you.

Better to be Judged by 12 than carried by 6 FBI agents to Gitmo.

You make my point. Federal troops have been used a number of times to suppress domestic insurrection and local resistance to federal authority. Ever hear of Little Rock? What you are suggesting is an armed confrontation with the U S military. If you have death wish, that is your business, but when you dress up treason and rebellion as if it is sanctioned by the courts, you are a dangerous fool and a despicable human being.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You know what, you ought to leave the United States. You don't like rules, laws, law enforcement or most Americans. So get the fuck out and find some place other than the U.S of America to live.

As more and more Americans feel the iron fist of the corporate oligarchy, which you worship, they will embrace these doctrines.

In the meantime, the Constitution is not up for a popular vote.

Don't be too sure. A couple of the Justices seem to be secure in the pocket of Brothers Koch and their goal is too firmly establish a Plutocracy in America.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Lincoln said it best:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

However, what would Lincoln have said about this scenario:

Suppose the States gathered in Convention to Amend the Constitution, in order to rectify abuses and transgressions by the federal government, and after the Amendment was ratified and enacted, the federal government continued those same abuses and transgressions.

Would it be of any use to have a second Convention to rectify these continued and insulting usurpations?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You make my point. Federal troops have been used a number of times to suppress domestic insurrection and local resistance to federal authority. Ever hear of Little Rock? What you are suggesting is an armed confrontation with the U S military. If you have death wish, that is your business, but when you dress up treason and rebellion as if it is sanctioned by the courts, you are a dangerous fool and a despicable human being.

Resisting a kidnapping and life imprisonment is treason?

I'll take my chances with the Jury, rather than the Gitmo judge.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let's take a trip down the rabbit hole!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...dment-nullification-redress-and-recourse.html

 

[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.

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.

Not really. Look at California, Washington, and Colorado. All of whom have nullified federal laws against marijuana. The federal government still tries to enforce their laws, of course, but the more states and people nullify their stupid laws the less ground they have to stand on.

So, you do have a point. The Supreme Court has ruled that nullification is unconstitutional, that the Supremacy Clause means that whatever the government does is supreme to the states and so on, but who cares? In reality, nobody has to listen to them.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to "natural law", an undefined concept, and to "self-evident truths", that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided....

But on the question of legality, we have to ask ourselves whether the people of South Africa right to rise up and challenge the law of apartheid? Were the Texans at the Alamo right or was Santa Anna right to put down the rebellion? Was the world right to oppose a militant Japan and Germany who were both operating within the law of their respective nations? Were the Bolsheviks right to oppose the Czars? Were the Chinese students right in Tiananmen Square or was the Chinese government right to put down the 'illegal' demonstration?

Legality is relative when it comes to convictions of right and wrong. And when those who oppose the law win, then it is usually the opposition itself that becomes legal. Sometimes opposing concepts of legality are fought out in the courts. Sometimes on the battlefield. But let's don't think for a minute that everything that is the law must stand unopposed simply because it is the law.

Lincoln said it best:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

The first two paragraphs you attribute to me in this post are not my words. (I fixed that in this response.) The last two paragraphs you attribute to me were in response to the first two paragraphs, among others.

But yes, Lincoln got it right even though he seems to contradict himself when he refused to allow the southern states to secede. But the southern states were not challenging or attempting to overthrow the existing government. They intended to separate themselves from it, something for which there is no provision for in the U.S. Constitution. Had they prevailed, that would have become legal. As they did not, their effort remained illegal.

It would be the same situation should Texas attempt to secede again. Would that be their legal right? Or would the U.S. government have legal authority to prevent that in order to protect the heavy investments in military installations, NASA, etc. that belong to all the people?

There are no easy answers to these concepts and questions. But if the U.S. government held to the principles that the U.S. Constitution was founded on and was designed to protect, the issue would not need to even come up. It is the rogue or corrupt government that no longer represents the people that it is legal to challenge, reject, and, if necessary, overthrow.