The States are ABOVE the federal govt - 4 ways the constitution says so

[Moonglow]

1. Most importantly we have the tenth amendment which says a power not given to the feds belongs to the states or the people.

"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."

2. The electoral college. People wonder why it exists - why don't we just vote directly for the president. It's because the states are independent countries. In a presidential election you vote for your electors who go to washington and choose the prez. Even presidential elections are done at the state level.

3.The amending process as outlined in Article 5 of the constitution. It says the states have final say on any proposed amendment. Congress can vote yes on the proposed amendment but THEN it goes to the states and 3/4 of them must ratify it.

4. The Supremacy Clause in Article 6 of the constitution.

"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."

The key thing here is the phrase "made in pursuance thereof". Only constitutional federal laws are above state laws. Who decides whether a law is constitutional? The constitution doesn't say which means by the tenth amendment, the states have the authority to nullify federal laws. It makes no sense anyway to let the feds decide the constitutionality of their own laws as they will and do rubber-stamp everything.

----

When america was founded and for the first 70 years of it's existence, it was like the European Union is now - a loose confederation of independent countries. France and italy and spain are still sovereign nations and so are Indiana and Maine.

Stalwart Repubs and radial republicanism during the Civil War and during reconstruction changed state rights, not to mention the GOP recognizing corporations as individuals in 1886.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your forgot the most important one: Ultimate sovereignty.
That is. the states have the power to disband the federal government, with the federal government having no legal means to stop them.

They do? The constitution does not say so. Hard to see how the states could disband the federal govt. They'd have to get all 50 states to agree to it and that won't happen.

False.

You only need as many as necessary to pass an amendment that says something to the effect of:

Upon the ratification of this amendment, The Constitution of the United States shall be considered null and void.

Thus, the federal government ceases to exist; the federal government has no legal means to stop this.
Thus, ultimate sovereignty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution is QUITE clear on what happens when a State or States disagree with the Federal Government. It is decided by the Supreme Court. It is clear as a bell and in plain english. Perhaps you should read the section on the power of the Court.

HAHA. What a brazen liar you are. Nowhere does the constitution give any federal agency authority to nullify state laws. But by the tenth amendment, it does gives states authority to nullify federal laws.

Article III paragraph 2 is CLEAR. Any dispute involving the US Government is the prevue of the Supreme Court. It states it in clear english. Want me to cite it again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III paragraph 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Article III | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Nullifying laws is by definition an extra-legal process. It is not a "case". THINK

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Article III paragraph 2 is CLEAR. Any dispute involving the US Government is the prevue of the Supreme Court. It states it in clear english. Want me to cite it again?

It doesn't say "disputes" it says "controversies" but none of that matters since nullifying laws is not a courtroom process. When states nullify a federal law, they don't take the feds to court. Nullification is extra-legal.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[]

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

No it doesn't you stinking liar. Article 3 says the JUDICIAL POWER shall extend to blah blah blah. So it has to be a legal dispute - something in a courtroom as when a state sues the feds. That is not how nullification is done. States just nullify. It's extra-legal, you nitiwit!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[]

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

No it doesn't you stinking liar. Article 3 says the JUDICIAL POWER shall extend to blah blah blah. So it has to be a legal dispute - something in a courtroom as when a state sues the feds. That is not how nullification is done. States just nullify. It's extra-legal, you nitiwit!!!

That is not legal.The nit wit is you claiming a State can just ignore federal law. A disputed LAW must be challenged in Court. By the way? That proves that the Supreme Court does in fact decide what laws that are challenged are Constitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your own Amendment makes it the responsibility of the States to challenge Federal laws that they believe violate their own powers, IN COURT.

Since if a Federal Law exists or a federal agency exists then the 10th clearly states that the authority is lost to the States and the people due to Federal Jurisdiction.

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.

Tenth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

The only legal and Constitutional way to prove the Power the law or Agency addresses is not granted by the Constitution is to take the US Government to Court and have the Supreme Court so rule.

As covered by the Supremacy clause that States Federal law and regulation supersede State law and regulation.

article VI paragraph 2

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

Until and unless the Supreme Court rules that a power, law or Agency is NOT granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution this clause applies.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

?
What? Yes it IS legal. You even outlined the concept in your next post:

Your own Amendment makes it the responsibility of the States to challenge Federal laws that they believe violate their own powers, IN COURT.
[snip]
Until and unless the Supreme Court rules that a power, law or Agency is NOT granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution this clause applies.

That is how a state nullifies a law. The government passes a law that the states feel is not within the federal government’s power to pass so the states pass a law that effectively nullifies that law. Then the case goes before the court for them to determine which entity has the power over that area. Otherwise, how does a state gain standing to challenge a law in court? Without a conflict, there is no challenge to be placed before the court. When the state law is effectively at odds with a federal law, that is when the courts get involved.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

That is not legal.The nit wit is you claiming a State can just ignore federal law. A disputed LAW must be challenged in Court. .

HAHAHA. No it doesn't. The states don't take the feds to court, they just refuse to comply. I suppose the feds could sue the state but they never do because they know the constitution is on the side of the state.

 

[regent]

That is not legal.The nit wit is you claiming a State can just ignore federal law. A disputed LAW must be challenged in Court. .

HAHAHA. No it doesn't. The states don't take the feds to court, they just refuse to comply. I suppose the feds could sue the state but they never do because they know the constitution is on the side of the state.

If a state does not obey a federal law, the enforcement of that law then rests on the president. The president may use force, as has been done at times such as Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion and Ike with Little Rock.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

HAHAHA. No it doesn't. The states don't take the feds to court, they just refuse to comply. I suppose the feds could sue the state but they never do because they know the constitution is on the side of the state.

If a state does not obey a federal law, the enforcement of that law then rests on the president. The president may use force, as has been done at times such as Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion and Ike with Little Rock.

And what do you think should happen when the feds don't obey a federal law as when obozo announced in the summer of 2012 that he was gonna let millions of illegals stay here in brazen defiance of federal laws.??? You really think the feds are gonna go to war with themselves? That's where the states need to step in and assert their supremacy.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The STATES have vastly more power than they either recognize or are willing to even try to assert.

By the way, in the early to mid 1860's the United Sates did NOT

repeat NOT

answer any question of whether or not a State can legally withdraw from the Union.

It did purport to answer that question. True enough. But whether it is a precedent setting answer is another matter entirely. Ask yourselves the obvious question:

Is there anything even remotely akin between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barry Hussein Soetoro Obumbler?

 

[FA_Q2]

The STATES have vastly more power than they either recognize or are willing to even try to assert.

By the way, in the early to mid 1860's the United Sates did NOT

repeat NOT

answer any question of whether or not a State can legally withdraw from the Union.

It did purport to answer that question. True enough. But whether it is a precedent setting answer is another matter entirely. Ask yourselves the obvious question:

Is there anything even remotely akin between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barry Hussein Soetoro Obumbler?

No, they really don’t have anything in common but I don’t see how that relates to the assertion. I think it is clear that the government at that time removed the right for any state to succeed. Do you really think that there would not be a war if one tried? I am sure that a refusal to accept the federal government’s authority would lead to war. The federal government could not take that kind of challenge to its power. I think that it is rather blind to think otherwise as a FAR less powerful government with FAR less control did that very same thing under Lincoln. Now we are facing a government that views the states as mere extensions of itself and such a challenge would be met with force.

The president has already declared that he can kill American citizens anywhere on the planet without due process and detain anyone that he chooses without recognition of their rights – what makes you think the government would allow a state to walk away from the table?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

?
What? Yes it IS legal. You even outlined the concept in your next post:

Your own Amendment makes it the responsibility of the States to challenge Federal laws that they believe violate their own powers, IN COURT.
[snip]
Until and unless the Supreme Court rules that a power, law or Agency is NOT granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution this clause applies.

That is how a state nullifies a law. The government passes a law that the states feel is not within the federal government’s power to pass so the states pass a law that effectively nullifies that law. Then the case goes before the court for them to determine which entity has the power over that area. Otherwise, how does a state gain standing to challenge a law in court? Without a conflict, there is no challenge to be placed before the court. When the state law is effectively at odds with a federal law, that is when the courts get involved.

You support my position not speeders, he claims the States can just ignore the federal Government with no requirement to take it to Court. Further he claims the Supreme Court does not have the power to decide.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

?
What? Yes it IS legal. You even outlined the concept in your next post:

Your own Amendment makes it the responsibility of the States to challenge Federal laws that they believe violate their own powers, IN COURT.
[snip]
Until and unless the Supreme Court rules that a power, law or Agency is NOT granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution this clause applies.

That is how a state nullifies a law. The government passes a law that the states feel is not within the federal government’s power to pass so the states pass a law that effectively nullifies that law. Then the case goes before the court for them to determine which entity has the power over that area. Otherwise, how does a state gain standing to challenge a law in court? Without a conflict, there is no challenge to be placed before the court. When the state law is effectively at odds with a federal law, that is when the courts get involved.

That’s not how most on the right perceive ‘nullification.’

They incorrectly believe that the states can ‘ignore’ Federal law and the rulings of Federal courts concerning matters states unilaterally determine to be ‘un-Constitutional.’

In this context, then, RetiredGySgt is correct: ‘nullification’ is neither legal nor Constitutional.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The STATES have vastly more power than they either recognize or are willing to even try to assert.

By the way, in the early to mid 1860's the United Sates did NOT

repeat NOT

answer any question of whether or not a State can legally withdraw from the Union.

It did purport to answer that question. True enough. But whether it is a precedent setting answer is another matter entirely. Ask yourselves the obvious question:

Is there anything even remotely akin between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barry Hussein Soetoro Obumbler?

No, they really don’t have anything in common but I don’t see how that relates to the assertion. I think it is clear that the government at that time removed the right for any state to succeed. Do you really think that there would not be a war if one tried? I am sure that a refusal to accept the federal government’s authority would lead to war. The federal government could not take that kind of challenge to its power. I think that it is rather blind to think otherwise as a FAR less powerful government with FAR less control did that very same thing under Lincoln. Now we are facing a government that views the states as mere extensions of itself and such a challenge would be met with force.

The president has already declared that he can kill American citizens anywhere on the planet without due process and detain anyone that he chooses without recognition of their rights – what makes you think the government would allow a state to walk away from the table?

The government (I assume you refer to the Federal government) did not and could not "remove" the "right" of any state to secede. (I assume you meant secede.) What the Federal government DID do was assert their claim that secession was invalid. They backed it up forcefully.

The reason my question about the difference between Lincoln and Obumbler matters is found precisely there. Lincoln was able to rely on force and was up to the task of going there. There is simply NO fucking WAY Obumbler would show such spunk. Whether Lincoln was right in his determination is not the question. The only meaningful question is: what would the Federal government DO about it THIS time if a bunch of States said, "we secede!"?

My answer is "no," I don't think there would be a war. I don't know that any of us have the stomach for a civil war to preserve the Union in 2013 and for the foreseeable future. I SERIOUSLY doubt our vaunted "leader" has anywhere NEAR that kind of moxie.

 

[J.E.D]

ShitStreaker is a moron

 

[IlarMeilyr]

ShitStreaker is a moron

YOU will never reach such intellectual heights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The STATES have vastly more power than they either recognize or are willing to even try to assert.

By the way, in the early to mid 1860's the United Sates did NOT

repeat NOT

answer any question of whether or not a State can legally withdraw from the Union.

It did purport to answer that question. True enough. But whether it is a precedent setting answer is another matter entirely. Ask yourselves the obvious question:

Is there anything even remotely akin between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barry Hussein Soetoro Obumbler?

No, they really don’t have anything in common but I don’t see how that relates to the assertion. I think it is clear that the government at that time removed the right for any state to succeed. Do you really think that there would not be a war if one tried? I am sure that a refusal to accept the federal government’s authority would lead to war. The federal government could not take that kind of challenge to its power. I think that it is rather blind to think otherwise as a FAR less powerful government with FAR less control did that very same thing under Lincoln. Now we are facing a government that views the states as mere extensions of itself and such a challenge would be met with force.

The president has already declared that he can kill American citizens anywhere on the planet without due process and detain anyone that he chooses without recognition of their rights – what makes you think the government would allow a state to walk away from the table?

No, he hasn’t.

With regard to the former, those targeted are afforded administrative due process by the Executive Branch, the disagreement concerns whether administrative due process is sufficient. And with regard to the latter, the president has made no such claim.

As to the topic, the states have the power and authority to do all manner of things, that’s not at issue.

The issue is when the states act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, such as attempting to deny same-sex couples equal access to marriage law, or violating the privacy rights of women by attempting to ‘ban’ abortion.

There’s a simple, straightforward way for the states to avoid being dragged into court by their residents per a civil rights violation complaint: obey the Constitution and its case law, stop enacting measures clearly un-Constitutional, and respect the inalienable rights of all your residents.