Bat-Crazy Jefferson, Nullification, and the Supreme Court

[Oddball]

please sober up or go away? no one here is talking about unlawful groups or locking people up. do you watch much FOX News or listen to much talk radio? Do you like tea parties?

When you can point to one single story about old school jury rights that Fakes News has reported on, you feel free to post it, dickweed.

 

[jillian]

I think being a libertarian org qualifies as being ideological.

"Larry Dodge, former Chair of the Montana Libertarian party, decided to educate the American people of this available but unused right. He also conceived of the Fully Informed Jury Association/Act/ Amendment (FIJA)"

the thread is about what it is about. Nullification by juries or the so-called right of state nullification that led to a civil war.

The Constitution was a compromise that all who signed agreed would not be taken apart -- "A republic if you can keep it" -Franklin paraphrase and most who take apart the Constitution are clueless to what they are doing.

but therein lies the rub... the cluelessness... and the insistence of some that the constitution means whatever they say it does, without thought to its meanings, construction or interpretation.

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

 

[Oddball]

When "actual law" becomes the political statement of the judicial oligarch making the decree, the line becomes irreversibly blurred.

But that's not a problem that the subversives on the inside of the judicial oligarchy are terribly concerned with anyways, so WTF....

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

but therein lies the rub... the cluelessness... and the insistence of some that the constitution means whatever they say it does, without thought to its meanings, construction or interpretation.

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

Jefferson appealed to Federalist judges when it suited his purposes -- when the democrats had went against him.

Jefferson's embargo (his lunatic idea to keep the USA out of the war between Britain and France) which was a complete and utter failure. Henry Adams wrote that Jefferson called out the army and navy to enforce his embargo and this exposed his hypocrisy in claiming to be a principled strict constructionist.

Adams actually writes that Jefferson's embargo and force of military might against Americans abridged more civil liberties than Great Britain did during the Revolutionary War.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Mises Institute of all links...

"Jefferson's Disastrous Embargo" - Objectivist Living

Jefferson's Disastrous Embargo - H.A. Scott Trask - Mises Daily

 

[jillian]

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

Jefferson appealed to Federalist judges when it suited his purposes -- when the democrats had went against him.

Jefferson's embargo (his lunatic idea to keep the USA out of the war between Britain and France) which was a complete and utter failure. Henry Adams wrote that Jefferson called out the army and navy to enforce his embargo and this exposed his hypocrisy in claiming to be a principled strict constructionist.

Adams actually writes that Jefferson's embargo and force of military might against Americans abridged more civil liberties than Great Britain did during the Revolutionary War.

there is also no question that the intention at that time was for 'the people' to have say only if one defined 'the people' as white, male, landed gentry... not women... not blacks.. who were 3/5 of a person and that only to appease the southern states for purposes of the house of representatives.

they certainly didn't intend for 'the people' to nullify federal law. as literalist as they claim to be, they are equally selective in what they ;like'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there is also no question that the intention at that time was for 'the people' to have say only if one defined 'the people' as white, male, landed gentry... not women... not blacks.. who were 3/5 of a person and that only to appease the southern states for purposes of the house of representatives.

they certainly didn't intend for 'the people' to nullify federal law. as literalist as they claim to be, they are equally selective in what they ;like'.

I think it is irrelevant to the points being discussed who was considered a voting citizen. Who become or does not become a citizen, with full voting rights, does not affect what is meant by the term 'people'

do not mistake 'people' for anything like majority.

 

[jillian]

there is also no question that the intention at that time was for 'the people' to have say only if one defined 'the people' as white, male, landed gentry... not women... not blacks.. who were 3/5 of a person and that only to appease the southern states for purposes of the house of representatives.

they certainly didn't intend for 'the people' to nullify federal law. as literalist as they claim to be, they are equally selective in what they ;like'.

I think it is irrelevant to the points being discussed who was considered a voting citizen. Who become or does not become a citizen, with full voting rights, does not affect what is meant by the term 'people'

do not mistake 'people' for anything like majority.

that's a fair point. i think that's my own personal bias against people ranting about 'we the people'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

there is also no question that the intention at that time was for 'the people' to have say only if one defined 'the people' as white, male, landed gentry... not women... not blacks.. who were 3/5 of a person and that only to appease the southern states for purposes of the house of representatives.

they certainly didn't intend for 'the people' to nullify federal law. as literalist as they claim to be, they are equally selective in what they ;like'.

I think it is irrelevant to the points being discussed who was considered a voting citizen. Who become or does not become a citizen, with full voting rights, does not affect what is meant by the term 'people'

do not mistake 'people' for anything like majority.

that's a fair point. i think that's my own personal bias against people ranting about 'we the people'.

I understand and I too am sensitive to the crap people spout when speaking of 'we' the people. But I was only sticking to the point here. It was a criticism not meant to offend.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jefferson was keen on the murderous bastards and excesses of the French Revolution. He justified the killing of as many innocents as it took in order to establish his warped vision of an agrarian utopia. A utopia based on a flawed and romantic view of history.

 

[jillian]

I think it is irrelevant to the points being discussed who was considered a voting citizen. Who become or does not become a citizen, with full voting rights, does not affect what is meant by the term 'people'

do not mistake 'people' for anything like majority.

that's a fair point. i think that's my own personal bias against people ranting about 'we the people'.

I understand and I too am sensitive to the crap people spout when speaking of 'we' the people. But I was only sticking to the point here. It was a criticism not meant to offend.

no offense was taken. you were correct in what you said, so why would i be bothered by that?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

that's a fair point. i think that's my own personal bias against people ranting about 'we the people'.

I understand and I too am sensitive to the crap people spout when speaking of 'we' the people. But I was only sticking to the point here. It was a criticism not meant to offend.

no offense was taken. you were correct in what you said, so why would i be bothered by that?

since the last two invasions @ USMB, the new refugees have taken being easily offended to a new low.

 

[jillian]

I understand and I too am sensitive to the crap people spout when speaking of 'we' the people. But I was only sticking to the point here. It was a criticism not meant to offend.

no offense was taken. you were correct in what you said, so why would i be bothered by that?

since the last two invasions @ USMB, the new refugees have taken being easily offended to a new low.

sometimes people need thicker skins.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and who gets to decide what federal laws are constitutional? but playing your game, where do those words get used in the Constitution "constitutional federal laws"?????

"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."

So only those federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution, or constitutional, are supreme over the states. When a law is not constitutional, or in pursuance of the Constitution, the states can nullify that law as per the 10th Amendment, since the Constitution does not forbid nullification.

"federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution"

I think all the laws the Constitution pursues (lol) would be federal laws. But I digress.

---

You are making up things. I am almost at a loss on how to reasonably and rationally respond.

btw you may find this helpful: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article V: Annotations pg. 2 of 3

The Supreme Court rules what federal laws are constitutional.

Not all federal laws are in pursuance of the Constitution is the point. Such as the Alien & Sedition Acts when Jefferson and Madison proposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Which is a power the Supreme Court gave itself. However, nullification is still not denied to the states, so is therefore a legitimate power.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think being a libertarian org qualifies as being ideological.

"Larry Dodge, former Chair of the Montana Libertarian party, decided to educate the American people of this available but unused right. He also conceived of the Fully Informed Jury Association/Act/ Amendment (FIJA)"

the thread is about what it is about. Nullification by juries or the so-called right of state nullification that led to a civil war.

The Constitution was a compromise that all who signed agreed would not be taken apart -- "A republic if you can keep it" -Franklin paraphrase and most who take apart the Constitution are clueless to what they are doing.

but therein lies the rub... the cluelessness... and the insistence of some that the constitution means whatever they say it does, without thought to its meanings, construction or interpretation.

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

Jefferson didn't believe that younger generations should be bound by the laws of older generations, but that is not how our Constitution was setup.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

but therein lies the rub... the cluelessness... and the insistence of some that the constitution means whatever they say it does, without thought to its meanings, construction or interpretation.

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

That's not clear at all. It's clear that some politicians and judges worked together to try to destroy the right of secession, but it's certainly not clear that secession was never a legitimate right of the states.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

Jefferson appealed to Federalist judges when it suited his purposes -- when the democrats had went against him.

Jefferson's embargo (his lunatic idea to keep the USA out of the war between Britain and France) which was a complete and utter failure. Henry Adams wrote that Jefferson called out the army and navy to enforce his embargo and this exposed his hypocrisy in claiming to be a principled strict constructionist.

Adams actually writes that Jefferson's embargo and force of military might against Americans abridged more civil liberties than Great Britain did during the Revolutionary War.

And the Federalist states NULLIFIED his embargo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jefferson was keen on the murderous bastards and excesses of the French Revolution. He justified the killing of as many innocents as it took in order to establish his warped vision of an agrarian utopia. A utopia based on a flawed and romantic view of history.

Jefferson later distanced himself from and condemned the French Revolution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"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."

So only those federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution, or constitutional, are supreme over the states. When a law is not constitutional, or in pursuance of the Constitution, the states can nullify that law as per the 10th Amendment, since the Constitution does not forbid nullification.

"federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution"

I think all the laws the Constitution pursues (lol) would be federal laws. But I digress.

---

You are making up things. I am almost at a loss on how to reasonably and rationally respond.

btw you may find this helpful: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article V: Annotations pg. 2 of 3

The Supreme Court rules what federal laws are constitutional.

Not all federal laws are in pursuance of the Constitution is the point. Such as the Alien & Sedition Acts when Jefferson and Madison proposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Which is a power the Supreme Court gave itself. However, nullification is still not denied to the states, so is therefore a legitimate power.

Were the Alien and Sedition Act ruled unconstitutional? Were they the law of teh land? Did they get shut down or were they allowed to expire?

The power the Supreme Court has was decided long ago. You may choose to not recognize said power, but you would destroy America for a flawed principle. And please do not take a statement of fact for a personal attack. You have repeatedly sided with the wrong side of almost everything, every legal precedent, every political compromise, since the Revolution. Your vision is one of an America that none of us would recognize.

You are civil and polite in argument but your reasoning has you following principles to their logical conclusions no matter the harm or damage. You are guilty of putting the cart before the horse in most things concerning America and the US Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

but therein lies the rub... the cluelessness... and the insistence of some that the constitution means whatever they say it does, without thought to its meanings, construction or interpretation.

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

Jefferson didn't believe that younger generations should be bound by the laws of older generations, but that is not how our Constitution was setup.

Jefferson believed many things and was on the losing side of most every argument with the Federalists and Marshall. Like the Confederacy, Jefferson lost...and you defend all.