Nullification of the Federal Law is the ONLY solution to the Border Crisis

[whitehall]

You have it upside down. Enforcing federal law is the only solution to the border crisis.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

e.



States have the right to make state laws, but state laws cannot conflict with federal law. A state may say something is legal, and the fed may let it ride for a certain amount of time, but at some point, the fed will strike down the conflicting state law.

As i just explained, that is false. Federal laws are NOT automatically above state laws. Federal laws are above state laws only if the federal law is consistent with the federal constitution and deciding that is (supposed to be) up to the states. THINK

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You have it upside down. Enforcing federal law is the only solution to the border crisis.

Whether they deport illegals or not will have no effect on the problem at hand --- Drug Cartels and jihadists running over the border.

They'll just keep dumping more women and children on the Border Patrol, preventing them from doing their job. Whether or not Border Patrol deports them, it takes a lot of time to do so.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You have it upside down. Enforcing federal law is the only solution to the border crisis.

REad the constitution. The only power it grants the feds is "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization". By the tenth amendment everything else re immigration is up to the states. In particular that means the states have authority to deport illegals and the states need to do that.

think

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm a capitalist, one with a serious dislike of what drugs do to society, and people in that society.
I see no advantage to illegal drug use, and lots of disadvantages.
One law I would change would be to allow legal use of ganja, when prescribed by a qualified doctor for a known medical condition.
Other than that, execute all drug dealers.

Also, since you claim to be a capitalist, you should know that Government's only role in the economy should be the Enforcement of Contracts, which were agreed to by all parties voluntarily.

You're a Progressive at worst, or a RHINO at best. You want to play God, you want to dictate people's behavior, you want to limit their choices, because it makes you "feel good" morally. "For your own good," sayeth the Progressive.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
Whether they deport illegals or not will have no effect on the problem at hand --- Drug Cartels and jihadists running over the border.

.

The problem at hand is the ordinary illegal. He or she is an unskilled illiterate loser coming here just to go on welfare. That will bankrupt us. THINK

 

[The2ndAmendment]

States have the right to make state laws, but state laws cannot conflict with federal law.

Only if that federal law is in harmony with the enumerated powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution of the United States.

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

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

It's ok, we get it, you're a closet Progressive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"the Drug Cartels are purposely arranging it so that the children are FLOODING the Border Patrol offices and agents" is a thesis without facts.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Mandatory death penalty for anyone arrested with more than a "personal use" quantity of ANY illegal drug.
Yes, including weed.

That'll slow the buggers down.

Liberal Love and Tolerance at its finest.

I'm a capitalist, one with a serious dislike of what drugs do to society, and people in that society.
I see no advantage to illegal drug use, and lots of disadvantages.
One law I would change would be to allow legal use of ganja, when prescribed by a qualified doctor for a known medical condition.
Other than that, execute all drug dealers.

Including Limbaugh's maid?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"the Drug Cartels are purposely arranging it so that the children are FLOODING the Border Patrol offices and agents" is a thesis without facts.

One of the top officers of the Border Patrol said this on Fox News today. Are you claiming that he was lying in the interview? If a Government agent made such a lie, he should be fired and sued immediately.

 

[Skylar]

"the Drug Cartels are purposely arranging it so that the children are FLOODING the Border Patrol offices and agents" is a thesis without facts.

One of the top officers of the Border Patrol said this on Fox News today. Are you claiming that he was lying in the interview? If a Government agent made such a lie, he should be fired and sued immediately.

When I throw the allegations you've made into a search engine, I only get this thread.
Can we hear from the agent please?

 

[Skylar]

Only if that federal law is in harmony with the enumerated powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution of the United States.

In harmony with the enumerated powers of the federal government according to who?

That's where your argument may get a little muddy.

 

[Lakhota]

This is a super dumbass thread.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Only if that federal law is in harmony with the enumerated powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution of the United States.

In harmony with the enumerated powers of the federal government according to who?

That's where your argument may get a little muddy.

Thomas Jefferson clarified the resolution to your boggle in the Kentucky Resolutions. The Federal Government is a Compact by the Several States. This is made very clear by the fact that the Constitution cannot be amended without the Consent of 3/4 of the States.

 

[Kosh]

This is a super dumbass thread.

If anyone should know what one is, it is this racist far left Obama drone.

However this thread will have more validity to it than any thread/post that you (or any far left Obama drone) will ever make.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is a super dumbass thread.

How fares the War on Drugs? Did enough black children get murdered in Chicago yet?

 

[Skylar]

Only if that federal law is in harmony with the enumerated powers of the Federal Government in the Constitution of the United States.

In harmony with the enumerated powers of the federal government according to who?

That's where your argument may get a little muddy.

Thomas Jefferson clarified the resolution to your boggle in the Kentucky Resolutions. The Federal Government is a Compact by the Several States. This is made very clear by the fact that the Constitution cannot be amended without the Consent of 3/4 of the States.

I didn't ask you what the threshold of amendment was. I asked you 'in harmony with enumerated powers of the federal government according to who?"

You're answering a question I didn't ask, nor has any particular relevance to my question. Can you please answer my question? I think you'll find its central to the problems with your argument.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In harmony with the enumerated powers of the federal government according to who?

That's where your argument may get a little muddy.

Thomas Jefferson clarified the resolution to your boggle in the Kentucky Resolutions. The Federal Government is a Compact by the Several States. This is made very clear by the fact that the Constitution cannot be amended without the Consent of 3/4 of the States.

I didn't ask you what the threshold of amendment was. I asked you 'in harmony with enumerated powers of the federal government according to who?"

You're answering a question I didn't ask, nor has any particular relevance to my question. Can you please answer my question? I think you'll find its central to the problems with your argument.

Apparently you've never read Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution of 1798, because you would be fully aware of WHO decides the boundaries of federal overreach.

and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party; that this 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.

The States, individually, are the arbiter of the Constitution. If a State abuses this power, in defiance of her sister States, they can call a Convention (or Congress can) and amend the Constitution to compel the belligerent state into submission. If the State continues to defy her sisters States after an Amendment is made to compel their compliance, Congress can summon the Militia to enforce the Supreme Law of the Union, whose Officers are appointed by the sister States.

What on earth makes you think that the Federal Courts are the ultimate arbiters of their own power?

Also, did it not occur to you that a Jury is also a body with supreme power over interpreting the Constitution in the courtroom? You seem to have this revisionist idea that the Federal Government is King.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Americans don't even know WHAT Jury Nullification IS much less how they can implement it.

Americhump: "But the cops found 10 pounds of marijuana in his car. We HAVE to find him guilty!"

Smart Person: "No. You CAN find him Innocent because you're not just judging the PERSON, you're judging the LAW as well."

Americhump: "What? The Judge says if he broke the Law we HAVE to find him Guilty!"

Smart Person: "The Judge is lying to you."

Americhump: "What? Why would he lie?"

 

[Skylar]

Thomas Jefferson clarified the resolution to your boggle in the Kentucky Resolutions. The Federal Government is a Compact by the Several States. This is made very clear by the fact that the Constitution cannot be amended without the Consent of 3/4 of the States.

I didn't ask you what the threshold of amendment was. I asked you 'in harmony with enumerated powers of the federal government according to who?"

You're answering a question I didn't ask, nor has any particular relevance to my question. Can you please answer my question? I think you'll find its central to the problems with your argument.

Apparently you've never read Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution of 1798, because you would be fully aware of WHO decides the boundaries of federal overreach.

Apparently you're unaware that Thomas Jefferson wasn't a delagate for any state in the Constitutional Convention, was an Anti-Federalist (the group that lost in imposing their interpretation on the new constitution), had virtually nothing to do with the crafting of the constitution, and wasn't even in the country at the time the Constitution was written, debated, or ratified.

He didn't even believe in implied powers......while Hamilton, a Federalist Paper write, did. And the founders sided with Hamilton, creating the first bank of the United States in the first session of the first congress. Something Jefferson insisted could never happen as the enumerated powers didn't include such a power, something the founders contradicted him on by creating it.

Making Jefferson among the least useful founders in determine anything regarding the constitution, as he was either absent or on the wrong side of virtually every issue in the document's creation.

The States, individually, are the arbiter of the Constitution.

So Jefferson believed. Washington, Hamilton and the overwhelming majority of the other State legislatures starkly disagreed. Jefferson was a strident anti-federalist. The anti-federalists lost, with the constitution drafted almost entirely to the Federalist line of reasoning.

Jefferson is expressing an the failed anti-federalist sentiment that wasn't shared by the overwhelming majority of the other founders nor drafted into the constitution. As the constitution clearly grants the federal judiciary jurisdiction over all cases that arise under the constitution. With Hamilton in the federalist papers making it ridiculously clear that the constitution was to be interpreted by the Federal Judiciary:

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

The Federalist #78

And remember, the Federalists won. Jefferson's Anti-Federalists lost.

Worse, the idea that the States were the interpreters of federal powers is contradicted by history. Under the articles of confederation, there was no federal judiciary. States were the ones that individually interpreted any federal law.

It was a disaster. State courts contradicted each other, federal laws were interpreted in State courts, conflicting with rulings in other state courts. And there was no body to settle these disputes. The lack of a judiciary was one of the primary reasons that the articles of confederation was abandoned and a new constitution created in 1787.

The idea that 'what the founders really wanted' was the same anarchy in interpretation that existed under the very Articles of Confederation the constitution was designed to replace makes absolutely no sense. Nor anywhere is this position argued in the constitutional convention.

Which might explain why the overwhelmingly majority of the State legislators, Washington, Hamilton and the overwhelming majority of the founders condemned the 'Kentucky Resolutions' and their long rejected Anti-Federalist interpretations.

What on earth makes you think that the Federal Courts are the ultimate arbiters of their own power?

The jurisdiction granted the courts over cases that arise under the constitution IN the constitution, the complete lack of any mention of the States ever being the arbiters of Federal power in the constitution or in the Constitutional Convention debates, and Federalist Paper 78 which lays out in no uncertain terms that it was the judiciary that was to interpret the constitution. A fact that even Anti-Federalists acknowledged leading up the Constitutional Convention;

The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void.

Robert Yates
Anti-Federalist Paper 78

It was well understood by both sides of the debate who the constitution was to be interpreted by: The Federal Judiciary. It made Anti-Federalists uncomfortable. Jefferson himself rejected the idea outright. . The issue was debated by the founders and Jefferson lost.

And finally, and certainly not to be left out.....Jefferson's near irrelevance in the drafting of the constitution, being out of the country when it was written, being part of no committee of its writing, and being a champion of *anti* federalism.......which lost in favor of the Federalist model of the constitution.

Also, did it not occur to you that a Jury is also a body with supreme power over interpreting the Constitution in the courtroom? You seem to have this revisionist idea that the Federal Government is King.

In the court room? Sure. Jury's have the authority to judge a person's guilt under the law....and judge the law itself. That's the beating heart of jury nullification, a concept long recognized by our system of law, including the USSC.

But the States aren't a jury. Making the point moot. And the jury's authority is checked by the appellant courts which can overrule them in many cases. Though an acquittal is always an acquittal.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Again, you're relying exclusively on overruled, out debated, ideologically abandoned and utterly absent Jefferson who played almost no role in the drafting of the constitution or the constitutional congress as your SOLE source for interpreting the constitution.

Jefferson's Anti-Federalist perspective was on the losing side of the debate when the constitution was drafted. He was on the losing side of the implied powers debate. He was on the losing side of the Bank of the United States debate. He was on the losing side of the Kentucky Resolution debate.

Making him among the worst sources you could possibly cite in trying to glean the 'founders intent' of the constitution.