Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
President Jackson IGNORED the US Supreme Court in the matter of the Cherokee. The court ordered him to cease and desist with moving them and yet he did it anyway. Nothing was ever done to the President for that act of illegality.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
Unless something is in the US Constitution or is part of the bill of rights,etc i.e. like no religious test, free speech provisions and so on.You don't need to ask "what if" it has happened many times in US history and is also happening now.
California and many other states have ignored the SCOTUS ruling on marijuana and legalized it anyway, nullifiyng the SCTOUS decision.
A state (google it) once protected a freed black slave after the SCOTUS ruled he had to be returned to his former master.
In fact, States have nullified SCOTUS decisions quite often --- and the feds can't do shit about it unless the States nullify an expressly enumerated power of the Federal Government.
President Jackson IGNORED the US Supreme Court in the matter of the Cherokee. The court ordered him to cease and desist with moving them and yet he did it anyway. Nothing was ever done to the President for that act of illegality.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
Actually it did make it to SCOTUS well after the war, and such measures were ruled constitutional, and an apology was refused by the court. Doesn't mean that it was right to treat Japanese and German Americans that way though.President Jackson IGNORED the US Supreme Court in the matter of the Cherokee. The court ordered him to cease and desist with moving them and yet he did it anyway. Nothing was ever done to the President for that act of illegality.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
You mean like FDR locking up Japanese Americans because they were Japanese?
They had no reason to put them into camps or round them up. Yet it was done anyway and this never even made it to SCOTUS...
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
Actually it did make it to SCOTUS well after the war, and such measures were ruled constitutional, and an apology was refused by the court. Doesn't mean that it was right to treat Japanese and German Americans that way though.President Jackson IGNORED the US Supreme Court in the matter of the Cherokee. The court ordered him to cease and desist with moving them and yet he did it anyway. Nothing was ever done to the President for that act of illegality.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
You mean like FDR locking up Japanese Americans because they were Japanese?
They had no reason to put them into camps or round them up. Yet it was done anyway and this never even made it to SCOTUS...
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
It saved a lot of lives though. Americans of 1945 were nothing like Americans today. The Americans in 1945 would have dragged those Japanese out in the street and butchered them. No one even thought about diversity.President Jackson IGNORED the US Supreme Court in the matter of the Cherokee. The court ordered him to cease and desist with moving them and yet he did it anyway. Nothing was ever done to the President for that act of illegality.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
You mean like FDR locking up Japanese Americans because they were Japanese?
They had no reason to put them into camps or round them up. Yet it was done anyway and this never even made it to SCOTUS...
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
It saved a lot of lives though. Americans of 1945 were nothing like Americans today. The Americans in 1945 would have dragged those Japanese out in the street and butchered them. No one even thought about diversity.President Jackson IGNORED the US Supreme Court in the matter of the Cherokee. The court ordered him to cease and desist with moving them and yet he did it anyway. Nothing was ever done to the President for that act of illegality.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
You mean like FDR locking up Japanese Americans because they were Japanese?
They had no reason to put them into camps or round them up. Yet it was done anyway and this never even made it to SCOTUS...
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
The only decision this really affects is the plundering of someone else's Social Security money..
Other than that your premise is flawed and shows that the far left does not understand the Constitution..
Supremacy Clause
"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."
So states will have to comply
The only decision this really affects is the plundering of someone else's Social Security money..
Other than that your premise is flawed and shows that the far left does not understand the Constitution..
Supremacy Clause
"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."
So states will have to comply
The only decision this really affects is the plundering of someone else's Social Security money..
Other than that your premise is flawed and shows that the far left does not understand the Constitution..
Supremacy Clause
"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."
So states will have to comply
Court decisions are not laws crated by the congress. I wasn't arguing if states had to comply with federal court decisions but whether or not if they're would be any consequences if they didn't. I don't think the Supreme Court can enforce its rulings without the states cooperation or the other two branches of the federal government.
Tell that to the pot smokers in Colorado.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
Nullification was dispensed with a long time ago.
not in the slightestNot really. They'd love the photo op though. The feds would simply sanction the officials involved. Could lead to the Second War of Secession though.The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.
It would seem kind of undemocratic if the federal government removed elected officials and replaced them with unelected officials. It is pretty obvious that the left embraces dictatorship when democracy is no longer a means to their ends.
You mean like the Republican state government of Michigan does right now??
Anyway, no they probably wouldn't remove elected officials, that would be kinda extreme. More likely the feds would take the route of denying funding for some service. That's their most commonly used weapon of choice.
Could you see a Justice department person escorting a gay couple to a State civil servant, and telling them to either issue a marriage certificate or be arrested?
The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.
Once again proving the far left does not understand the Constitution..
Tell that to the pot smokers in Colorado.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
Nullification was dispensed with a long time ago.
So smoking pot is illegal in Colorado? Or is it legal? Make up your mind here.Tell that to the pot smokers in Colorado.it is an interesting scenario. What if a state ignored a ruling against it such as the issue on gay marriage? Would the court have any power to force the state to comply with its ruling? It is the uLtimate voluntary authority because a state may not comply if it thinks it decision was way out of line.
Nullification was dispensed with a long time ago.
They didn't nullify anything.
That is wrong. See hereThe feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.
Once again proving the far left does not understand the Constitution..
They can cut off federal funds to those States, and have done so in the past. YOU have no idea what the Constitution provides for.
The feds have all the power needed to force compliance, up to and incarcerating those officials who refuse and installing officials who will comply.
Once again proving the far left does not understand the Constitution..
They can cut off federal funds to those States, and have done so in the past. YOU have no idea what the Constitution provides for.
