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

[NYcarbineer]

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. .

You are grievously uninformed.

California Medical Marijuana Crackdown Ramps Up As More Dispensaries Targeted For Closure

I know one thing, if I was thinking about starting a pot selling business in California, I certainly wouldn't want you as a legal consultant.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Nullification Revolution! Uncle Sam does NOT want you!

 

[Geaux4it]

If it was not for that jerk-ff Graham running the show in SC I might think of moving there.

Constitutional villages are popping up all over the country.

And so it begins..

-Geaux

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

He does not need to give you SCOTUS cases because he provide real instances where nullification was not only practiced but times where it worked. Just because nullification has been removed by the federal government (when they judge the extent of their own powers SURPRISE!) does not mean that logistically, states can obliterate federal laws. It has happened before and can happen again. Drug laws are a good case for this as it is almost impossible for the feds to prosecute that law without state support.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes all of the above null and void.

The Supremacy Clause only applies to those Laws derived from the express delegation of powers.

That's a circular argument. State and local governments do not get to set themselves up as federal courts to decide the constitutionality of laws. Unless a law is ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts, it is the law of the land with the full force of the Supremacy Clause behind it.

That requires you to ascribe to the current interpretation that the constitution is NOT a document that defines governmental responsibilities but rather describes the things the government is NOT allowed to do. That might be the way that the document is looked at recently but I, and many others here, both believe and have shown in other threads that this was not the intent at all. That interpretation of the supremacy clause not only completely removes the tenth amendment but essentially gives the federal government unlimited powers over virtually everything. It is a wonder why the founders even bothered with enumerated powers. They are rather pointless. Perhaps they should have called that list a list of ‘suggested governmental actions’ rather than making it a list of governmental powers.

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.

See above. It does no such thing. It simply makes nullification difficult.

 

[FA_Q2]

History is against Big Government. Name one instance in humanity where large centralized government produced good results?

This is a misnomer. There are instances (and a few have already been given) but that does not matter. What does matter is the system that we wish to live under as Americans and whether or not we want true freedom. I don’t care how good the ‘results’ are in a dictatorship, that dies not mean I want to live in one nor are good results necessarily a good roadmap for a preferred government as there are millions of different ways of measuring success.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

History is against Big Government. Name one instance in humanity where large centralized government produced good results?

This is a misnomer. There are instances (and a few have already been given) but that does not matter. What does matter is the system that we wish to live under as Americans and whether or not we want true freedom. I don’t care how good the ‘results’ are in a dictatorship, that dies not mean I want to live in one nor are good results necessarily a good roadmap for a preferred government as there are millions of different ways of measuring success.

This question is directed at Liberals who still have their heads stuck up their ass. You can count the number of beneficial results of Big Gov (throughout all of world history) with the fingers on yours hands. Now compare that to poor results and even --- democide results.

 

[Katzndogz]

We used to believe that God was all seeing. Now we know for a fact that the government is all seeing. Creation of a theocracy is on-going, but it's the government that is God.

 

[Foxfyre]

We used to believe that God was all seeing. Now we know for a fact that the government is all seeing. Creation of a theocracy is on-going, but it's the government that is God.

A government that is God when headed by a particular ideology. Not so much if it is the opposing party/ideology that is in charge. I wonder if our more 'progressive' friends here would be defending government against the will of the people so strenuously if we were still under the GWB and Republican administration?

For reasons too lengthy (and unnecessary) to explain, I was recently in a discussion with a group of teenagers at our church. The question came up about how much the school was teaching the principles upon which this nation was founded and the concepts, debates, and documents that inform us as to the Founders beliefs and intentions. The kids were unanimous in agreeing that our education system is teaching this almost not at all any more. I'm sure this is the case across most of the country.

So we have a disturbingly large group of Americans who are unschooled in what liberty is and who are trained to think of government as good and something that the people must serve instead of the other way around. They have already returned to serfdom and embrace no concept of unalienable rights but only what the government allows.

Again I think this is the last generation with any hope to turn that around.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When you pray to your government for sustenance and wealth, asking it to help you prosper, you have made it your god. When you ask it to aid you in your life, for whatever reason, you have made it your god. When you ask it to define your life and condone your actions, you have made it your god. When you ask it to restore what was lost to you, you have made it your god.

My God is not bound by the whims and laws of mortal men. He remains the king of the universe and the next, and of my life. Instead of being dependent on a finite source, I am reliant on an infinite source.

Government is not my god.