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

[Skylar]

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?"

I'm an American and I know what jury nullification is. When I'm called for jury duty, if asked I make it clear that I'll be judging the law and the defendant. I've never been called to sit on an actual jury.

The two facts may be related.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No question the Supremacy Clause and the tenth amendment combined give the states authority to nullify federal laws. But do the states have the balls for it?. They threatened to nullify obamacare 4 years ago and then turned yella.

The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment make it clear that states cannot nullify federal law.

Based on your 'reasoning', states could simply nullify the 2nd amendment if they wanted to pass gun laws more restrictive than the federal government allowed.

Eh?

 

[paperview]

Mornin' consti-toot-shunalists.

Let's start with the basics: Nullification has NEVER been legally upheld.

It is settled law, almost as old as Marbury v Madison, and upheld every time since then. Nullification theory essentially makes a mockery of the US Constitution.


If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery; and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. – United States v. Peters, 9 US 115 (1809)

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The individual States do not have the power to act in place of the Supreme Court to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. That is why we have a Supreme Court.

 

[Kosh]

No question the Supremacy Clause and the tenth amendment combined give the states authority to nullify federal laws. But do the states have the balls for it?. They threatened to nullify obamacare 4 years ago and then turned yella.

The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment make it clear that states cannot nullify federal law.

Based on your 'reasoning', states could simply nullify the 2nd amendment if they wanted to pass gun laws more restrictive than the federal government allowed.

Eh?

Once again the far left shows they do not understand the constitution, especially in the context of any discussion.

Just more far left propaganda based on faulty programming.

 

[Kosh]

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.

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.

The individual States do not have the power to act in place of the Supreme Court to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. That is why we have a Supreme Court.

Another example of how the far left does not understand the Constitution.

Just more far left talking points not based on fact or reality.

So based on the faulty far left programming being displaying here: Since the Federal Government outlaws Mary J, then the states should not be able to legalize it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The KY and VA resolutions and Fox opinion last I looked are not law.

Did something change?

And get off your butt and post clearly where the FBI said what you say he said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No question the Supremacy Clause and the tenth amendment combined give the states authority to nullify federal laws. But do the states have the balls for it?. They threatened to nullify obamacare 4 years ago and then turned yella.

The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment make it clear that states cannot nullify federal law.

Based on your 'reasoning', states could simply nullify the 2nd amendment if they wanted to pass gun laws more restrictive than the federal government allowed.

Eh?

Once again the far left shows they do not understand the constitution, especially in the context of any discussion.

Just more far left propaganda based on faulty programming.

Kosh, in other words, is saying, "blah blah blah bullshit" because NYC is right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another example of how the far left does not understand the Constitution. Just more far left talking points not based on fact or reality. So based on the faulty far left programming being displaying here: Since the Federal Government outlaws Mary J, then the states should not be able to legalize it.

Clearly Kosh does not understand the principles of federalism.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment make it clear that states cannot nullify federal law.

Based on your 'reasoning', states could simply nullify the 2nd amendment if they wanted to pass gun laws more restrictive than the federal government allowed.

Eh?

Once again the far left shows they do not understand the constitution, especially in the context of any discussion.

Just more far left propaganda based on faulty programming.

Kosh, in other words, is saying, "blah blah blah bullshit" because NYC is right.

That's what it sounds like to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So states can simply ignore the ban on so-called partial birth abortion and make it legal again?

 

[Skylar]

No question the Supremacy Clause and the tenth amendment combined give the states authority to nullify federal laws. But do the states have the balls for it?. They threatened to nullify obamacare 4 years ago and then turned yella.

The Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment make it clear that states cannot nullify federal law.

Based on your 'reasoning', states could simply nullify the 2nd amendment if they wanted to pass gun laws more restrictive than the federal government allowed.

Eh?

Once again the far left shows they do not understand the constitution, especially in the context of any discussion.

Just more far left propaganda based on faulty programming.

So....random insults but no substantive comment on any point being raised, any issue being discussed. Are you even aware of what argument NYCarbineer is rebutting?

Let me give you the cliff notes: he's rebutting the idea that the constitution is not supposed to be interpreted by the Federal Supreme Court. But by each State.

Using that reasoning, why couldn't say, Illinois find that the 2nd amendment only applies to those in a militia, and private gun ownership is not protected under the constitution? Remember, each State is its own Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court of Illinois upheld the handgun ban that the Federal Courts overturned in McDonald v. Chicago.

If the federal courts don't interpret the constitution and it is instead interpreted by the States, then who is there to overturn the handgun ban? No one. Any restriction any State felt was constitutionally justified would be as authoritative as any USSC ruling is now.

Interracial marriage? If the Supreme Court of Virginia says its constitutional, then there's no one to contradict them. Poll taxes? Castration for being gay? Religious freedoms? Segregation? They're all dependent on the each State to decide. And no one can overrule them under the paradym that NYcarbineer is rebutting.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

 

[Skylar]

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.

The KY and VA resolutions and Fox opinion last I looked are not law.

Did something change?

And get off your butt and post clearly where the FBI said what you say he said.

Not only not law, but an expression of anti-federalism....which Jefferson supported. And the founders overwhelmingly rejected.

You'll note that his *every* citation of the meaning of the constitution is from Jefferson. A man who wasn't a delegate for any State in the Constitutional Convention. A man who played virtually no hand in the crafting of the constitution. A man who wasn't even on the North American continent when the constitution was debated, written and ratified.

And a man who was on the losing side of every major issue of his day. On federalism, Jefferson's opposition was rejected by a majority of the founders. On implied powers Jefferson's perspective was rejected. On the Bank of the United States, jefferson's perspective was rejected. On the role of the Federal Judiciary, Jefferson was rejected. Even his Kentucky resolution was rejected by Washington, Hamilton, an overwhelming majority of the founding fathers, and the overwhelming majority of the State legislatures.

On virtually every constitutional issue of his day, Jefferson was either absent or overruled.

Making him one of the worst sources one could possibly quote to determine the 'Founders Intent'. 2ndAmmendment cited Jefferson because he agrees with Jefferson. Not because the Founders did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do be careful, Skylar. Ask 2dA if he accepts Jefferson's concept of separation of church and state.

 

[Skylar]

So states can simply ignore the ban on so-called partial birth abortion and make it legal again?

Yup! If each state is its own Supreme Court, who is there to overrule them if they interpret the constutution in such a manner to support it.

Illinois hand gun ban? Back on.

Virginia's ban on interracial marriage? Back on!

Missouri's Mormon Extermination act? Back on!

Castration for being gay? Back on!

Poll taxes? Back on!

Jim Crow laws? Back on!

Segregation! Back on!

With the exception of the gun ban, its a KKK members wet dream.