The2ndAmendment
Gold Member
- Feb 16, 2013
- 13,383
- 3,659
Our Congress was created with two separate chambers:
1) The House of Representatives.
2) The Senate
At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, each Representative represented roughly 30,000 - 35,000 people. This gave the local populations and governments A LOT of control over the federal government.
As a Popular Mode of Representation, each state elected an amount of Representatives mirroring the overall proportion of their populations to the rest of the Union.
This body could rapidly react to dire and obvious abuses and transgressions. The people may not always know what is good or harmful to them, but they certainly know when things are exceptionally cruel and unjust when it interferes with their everyday happiness.
However, as a reactive body, and not a proactive body, the people may mistakenly replace one tyranny with a worse tyranny; therefore:
-----------------------------
The Senate was the "upper chamber," whose members were selected by the State Legislatures, at staggered 6 year intervals, with 1/3 of the Senate members selected every 2 years.
The Senate was designed to be a stable body, generally immunized against public hysteria and strong waves of passion. It was also there to represent the State, not the people of that State, at least not directly. Here the "State" is being referred to in the abstract sense, as a legal fiction. This idea can be found in the Federalist Papers with practically every turn of the page.
The fiery and jealous nature of the House checked the slow and sometimes corrupt nature of the Senate; conversely, the more stable and better informed Senators checked the wild and sometimes destructive ideas of the House, also known as tyranny by the majority.
So here we had Local check on the federal government (the House), and a State check on the federal government (the Senate). Then the federal government was given checks on itself via the separation of powers, as a final barrier against arbitrary law.
And if all of the above failed, the ultimate Arbiter of Justice would be summoned, the Jury, ready to invoke its irreversible power to save a good citizen.
--------------------------------------------------
Nullification:
Arguments against Nullification during the early years of Republic may have actually been legitimate. Nullification is very intense mode of recourse against the tyranny of the federal government, the doctrine asserts that the States have the right to void any federal law or statute that operates outside the delegated powers of federal government via the US Constitution.
If we recall that during these early years, the local populations and the States had exclusive control of the federal Congress. Thus any law that came from Congress was a law passed with the Consent of both the local populations (for now on referred to as Counties) and the States.
So, do the States have the power to nullify a law that both the Counties and States Consented to, overall? No, because they ratified the Constitution, submitting themselves to all laws properly passed by Congress.
However, the States were not without recourse. Within six years, the State governments could have selected new Senators to repeal any laws they found unconstitutional, or were severely hindering them otherwise.
Also, the people had recourse. If they felt sufficiently oppressed or unhappy, they could elect new Representatives within 2 years.
So during this era, it is safe to say that Nullification was not legal, UNLESS the federal government passed laws that were specifically prohibited to it, such as a law violating the freedom of the press (Sedition Act). All those things not expressly prohibited to the federal government would have to be resolved in the state and federal Courts, or a new Congress overturned or modified the law.
------------------------
However, in this modern era, the local population no longer has any control over the House of Representatives. Each Representative represents 700,000 or more people. This defeats the entire purpose of popular sovereignty. A close 51%-49% election leaves slightly less than 350,000 people unrepresented, which is tyrannical and insulting.
If we returned to 1:30,000 ratios or even 1:100,000 ratios, we could restore popular control of the government, and the Two-Party system would implode. This would mean upwards of 8,000 Representatives, which would be hardly a problem with the advent of modern technology. It would also be the end of gridlock.
--------------------------
Secondly, in this modern era, the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913 by corporate-fascist interests in record time (along with the Federal Reserve and the IRS lololol just connect the dots here), removed the ability of the States to select their Senators, under the pretense of popular election.
This has several immediate problems:
1) The people have no control of the nomination process, only big money does, making the corruption problem even worse, not better than it was before.
2) The Senate chamber is now a Popular Mode of Representation, therefore it needs to have a proportional number of Representatives --- but wait, that would just be a copy of the House of Reps!
3) Since it is not proportional, the citizens of small states have more power than the citizens of large states! A voter in California only has 1/50 the vote of a citizen in South Dakota (rough numbers)! WTF!
4) If it was Proportional, then it would violate the "No State may be denied equal suffrage in the Senate" clause of the Constitution.
So the Amendment is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't (proportional representation)!
Now most importantly:
THE STATES HAVE NO RECOURSE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
NOR IS THERE A CHECK ON THE POTENTIALLY WILD AND DESTRUCTIVE TYRANNY BY THE MAJORITY.
Combine with the income tax and federal reserve, and the Federal Government, and its military, can grow to epic proportions, just in time for WWI and WWII, convenient huh?
Oh and now the States have zero recourse against the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, with a mere facade of government oversight, forcing all of the States into debt with the Federal Government in order to create worthless fiat currency...
-------------------
Anyway, back to Nullification.
Not too long after the 17th Amendment, the federal government capped the number of members in the House of Reps.
Great, now neither the people nor the States have any control over the federal government. The federal government is now, in many respects, a rogue entity of its own, a puppet show, being directed in the shadows.
Popular Sovereignty was --- lost.
State Sovereignty was --- unceremoniously abolished.
So what measure or mode of recourse do the people (Counties) or the States have, other than local or state nullification?
They must unify to amend the Constitution, some person would say, thinking they were wise. The States would initiate the process with a 2/3 call for Convention, and the Counties would later ratify the Amendment in each State, needing a total of 3/4 the States.
Assuming that the above process goes undisturbed, which is unlikely, and the States and people do amend the Constitution, what if the federal government simply IGNORES this new Amendment.
Let's be honest, if the federal government was so tyrannical as to cause a Constitutional Convention, there's a 99.9999% that they were/are shitting all over the Constitution. Wtf would another new Amendment to that worthless piece of shitstained paper do to control the federal government? Nothing.
So what now, do the States and people call a Second Convention, and Amend the Constitution again? lololol
Obviously Nullification would be the only solution in this scenario, and this scenario is TODAY.
Not only should the Counties and/or States nullify the federal transgressions, but we have the legal right to nullify, because there exists no other remedy or mode of recourse. So long as the founding philosophy of the Constitution is a Federalist Republic, and not a Unitary State, there must exist a mode of recourse for the States and the people.
1) The House of Representatives.
2) The Senate
At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, each Representative represented roughly 30,000 - 35,000 people. This gave the local populations and governments A LOT of control over the federal government.
As a Popular Mode of Representation, each state elected an amount of Representatives mirroring the overall proportion of their populations to the rest of the Union.
This body could rapidly react to dire and obvious abuses and transgressions. The people may not always know what is good or harmful to them, but they certainly know when things are exceptionally cruel and unjust when it interferes with their everyday happiness.
However, as a reactive body, and not a proactive body, the people may mistakenly replace one tyranny with a worse tyranny; therefore:
-----------------------------
The Senate was the "upper chamber," whose members were selected by the State Legislatures, at staggered 6 year intervals, with 1/3 of the Senate members selected every 2 years.
The Senate was designed to be a stable body, generally immunized against public hysteria and strong waves of passion. It was also there to represent the State, not the people of that State, at least not directly. Here the "State" is being referred to in the abstract sense, as a legal fiction. This idea can be found in the Federalist Papers with practically every turn of the page.
The fiery and jealous nature of the House checked the slow and sometimes corrupt nature of the Senate; conversely, the more stable and better informed Senators checked the wild and sometimes destructive ideas of the House, also known as tyranny by the majority.
So here we had Local check on the federal government (the House), and a State check on the federal government (the Senate). Then the federal government was given checks on itself via the separation of powers, as a final barrier against arbitrary law.
And if all of the above failed, the ultimate Arbiter of Justice would be summoned, the Jury, ready to invoke its irreversible power to save a good citizen.
--------------------------------------------------
Nullification:
Arguments against Nullification during the early years of Republic may have actually been legitimate. Nullification is very intense mode of recourse against the tyranny of the federal government, the doctrine asserts that the States have the right to void any federal law or statute that operates outside the delegated powers of federal government via the US Constitution.
If we recall that during these early years, the local populations and the States had exclusive control of the federal Congress. Thus any law that came from Congress was a law passed with the Consent of both the local populations (for now on referred to as Counties) and the States.
So, do the States have the power to nullify a law that both the Counties and States Consented to, overall? No, because they ratified the Constitution, submitting themselves to all laws properly passed by Congress.
However, the States were not without recourse. Within six years, the State governments could have selected new Senators to repeal any laws they found unconstitutional, or were severely hindering them otherwise.
Also, the people had recourse. If they felt sufficiently oppressed or unhappy, they could elect new Representatives within 2 years.
So during this era, it is safe to say that Nullification was not legal, UNLESS the federal government passed laws that were specifically prohibited to it, such as a law violating the freedom of the press (Sedition Act). All those things not expressly prohibited to the federal government would have to be resolved in the state and federal Courts, or a new Congress overturned or modified the law.
------------------------
However, in this modern era, the local population no longer has any control over the House of Representatives. Each Representative represents 700,000 or more people. This defeats the entire purpose of popular sovereignty. A close 51%-49% election leaves slightly less than 350,000 people unrepresented, which is tyrannical and insulting.
If we returned to 1:30,000 ratios or even 1:100,000 ratios, we could restore popular control of the government, and the Two-Party system would implode. This would mean upwards of 8,000 Representatives, which would be hardly a problem with the advent of modern technology. It would also be the end of gridlock.
--------------------------
Secondly, in this modern era, the 17th Amendment, passed in 1913 by corporate-fascist interests in record time (along with the Federal Reserve and the IRS lololol just connect the dots here), removed the ability of the States to select their Senators, under the pretense of popular election.
This has several immediate problems:
1) The people have no control of the nomination process, only big money does, making the corruption problem even worse, not better than it was before.
2) The Senate chamber is now a Popular Mode of Representation, therefore it needs to have a proportional number of Representatives --- but wait, that would just be a copy of the House of Reps!
3) Since it is not proportional, the citizens of small states have more power than the citizens of large states! A voter in California only has 1/50 the vote of a citizen in South Dakota (rough numbers)! WTF!
4) If it was Proportional, then it would violate the "No State may be denied equal suffrage in the Senate" clause of the Constitution.
So the Amendment is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't (proportional representation)!
Now most importantly:
THE STATES HAVE NO RECOURSE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
NOR IS THERE A CHECK ON THE POTENTIALLY WILD AND DESTRUCTIVE TYRANNY BY THE MAJORITY.
Combine with the income tax and federal reserve, and the Federal Government, and its military, can grow to epic proportions, just in time for WWI and WWII, convenient huh?
Oh and now the States have zero recourse against the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, with a mere facade of government oversight, forcing all of the States into debt with the Federal Government in order to create worthless fiat currency...
-------------------
Anyway, back to Nullification.
Not too long after the 17th Amendment, the federal government capped the number of members in the House of Reps.
Great, now neither the people nor the States have any control over the federal government. The federal government is now, in many respects, a rogue entity of its own, a puppet show, being directed in the shadows.
Popular Sovereignty was --- lost.
State Sovereignty was --- unceremoniously abolished.
So what measure or mode of recourse do the people (Counties) or the States have, other than local or state nullification?
They must unify to amend the Constitution, some person would say, thinking they were wise. The States would initiate the process with a 2/3 call for Convention, and the Counties would later ratify the Amendment in each State, needing a total of 3/4 the States.
Assuming that the above process goes undisturbed, which is unlikely, and the States and people do amend the Constitution, what if the federal government simply IGNORES this new Amendment.
Let's be honest, if the federal government was so tyrannical as to cause a Constitutional Convention, there's a 99.9999% that they were/are shitting all over the Constitution. Wtf would another new Amendment to that worthless piece of shitstained paper do to control the federal government? Nothing.
So what now, do the States and people call a Second Convention, and Amend the Constitution again? lololol
Obviously Nullification would be the only solution in this scenario, and this scenario is TODAY.
Not only should the Counties and/or States nullify the federal transgressions, but we have the legal right to nullify, because there exists no other remedy or mode of recourse. So long as the founding philosophy of the Constitution is a Federalist Republic, and not a Unitary State, there must exist a mode of recourse for the States and the people.
Last edited:
