Nullification: The Lost Balance of Power

Should nullification be a state power?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 10 62.5%
  • No.

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Unsure/Maybe in some cases

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16
I'm happy to see ShackledNation has exposed his agenda - claiming that the south didn't favor nullification and (rather obviously) Calhoun's comments on the Nullification controversy....

And then his explanation of why a STATE could over-rule a 2nd amendment claim...

Precious.
Complete and utter dishonest mischaracterization of my post. I clearly said a state could not over-rule the 2nd amendment legally, but that states, like the federal government, potentially could unconstitutionally do so. The federal government constantly breaks the constitution unlawfully. The argument was that the states would be less likely to do so, which you totally ignored. Do you think government is infallible? I hope not. All arguments against nullification result in such pathetic and laughable behavior as you have displayed. You shut out debate because you don't want to face reality.

Not to mention your use of the strawman fallacy. I said nullification was a tradition of the north more than the south, not that the south did not have a single supporter of nullification. Demagoguery at its worst.
 
Last edited:
If only we had the power to nullify it all.

The States never had such authority, nor will or should they ever.

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court ruled that ‘nullification’ is un-Constitutional:

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "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 . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

See also McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

The courts never authorized ‘nullification,’ the Supremacy Clause has always been interpreted as just that: Federal laws and decisions made by the Supreme Court are the laws of the land, states were never authorized to ignore or reject Federal law or rulings by the Court.

The issue of ‘nullification’ is therefore moot.

The supremacy clause is moot on the subject of how we determine whether a law is Constitutional. Laws that aren't constitutional are obviously null and void. Nothing in the Constitution says the Supreme Court was to be the sole arbiter of which laws complied with the Constitution. There is also nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from seceding. Even the servile followers of the Lincoln cult admit that.

I was waiting for the supremacy clause argument.

The supremacy clause found in Article VI reads: "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 of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

But a nullifying state does not deny that the supremacy clause. In fact, it defends it. States are disputing whether the law in question is "pursuant to the Constitution" as the clause states in the first place. If an unconstitutional law is passed, the states have the duty to nullify it because it is not "made in Pursuance" of the constitution.

See above, you both clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

You need to realize that whatever ‘understanding’ you might have of the Constitution or intent of the Framers, it is in essence a fantasy – something you’ve made up, a contrivance. Without case law in support of your positions, your arguments have no merit.
 
If only we had the power to nullify it all.

The States never had such authority, nor will or should they ever.

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court ruled that ‘nullification’ is un-Constitutional:
The states do have such authority, and should. The fact that the courts ruled nullification unconstitutional is moot. The courts also ruled at one time that a black man was property. Many rulings have been overturned, including those. The internment of the Japanese, also a ruling, has not been overturned. Do you think it should be legal for the federal government to invade the people of a state, judge a certain group as a threat, and put them in compounds? The courts allow it. Korematsu v. United States has never been overturned, so if you feel so strongly about the courts your answer must be yes. Point is, the courts are not infallible. Nullification is something the courts have ruled wrongly on that has never been corrected, just as Japanese Internment was never corrected. According to the Supreme Court, exclusion orders are constitutional.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "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 . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Marshall was wrong. The federal government has equal power to destroy the rights of the states granted by the Constitution. History has proven that. Unless you believe for some reason the federal government is less likely to break the Constitution, that entire argument is completely out of line with the reality of a federal system. The entire federal system breaks down without the ability of the states to check the central power. If there is a dispute between the states and the federal government, and the federal government has the sole authority to settle such disputes, who do you think will win? The decks are stacked.

The courts never authorized ‘nullification,’ the Supremacy Clause has always been interpreted as just that: Federal laws and decisions made by the Supreme Court are the laws of the land, states were never authorized to ignore or reject Federal law or rulings by the Court.

The issue of ‘nullification’ is therefore moot.
Dead wrong. Jefferson was a strong supporter of nullification. Considering he participated in writing the Constitution, I think he knew what the supremacy clause meant.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1799, “lest [our] silence be construed into an acquiescence…the states…being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of [the federal government’s] infraction; and “That a nullification, by those sovereignties [states] of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument [the Constituion] is the rightful remedy.
What Would Jefferson Do? Nullify Now! – Tenth Amendment Center

Jefferson’s theory of nullification, outlined in his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, is fairly simple: the US Constitution was a compact among the states where certain, limited powers were delegated to the federal government; any powers assumed by the federal government that were not expressly delegated to it, automatically become void–the federal courts be damned.

The argument that federal courts would never uphold nullification of federal law was Jefferson's point exactly.Thomas Jefferson emphasized repeatedly that the federal courts are a branch of the federal government, so if you have a dispute between the states and the federal government, and then let only the federal government decide it…it is an absurd notion. His argument was that the states are the constituent parts of the union, so therefore they have to make their interpretation of the constitution count for something.

Only federal laws made “in pursuance” of the Constitution may receive supremacy. The supremacy clause only holds in situations when federal law is constitutional. The 10th Amendment gives further credence to this distinction: “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.” Nullifying unconstitutional law was never prohibited.

See above, you both clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

You need to realize that whatever ‘understanding’ you might have of the Constitution or intent of the Framers, it is in essence a fantasy – something you’ve made up, a contrivance. Without case law in support of your positions, your arguments have no merit.
Jefferson is not a framer? His intent counts for nothing then? Have you heard of the anti-federalists? There is much more to this issue than you are making of it, and it is far from a moot debate. I am sorry, but the fantasy world is not my place of residence. Without nullification, the states have no way to check unconstitutional actions of the federal government. Without such a power, the states are meaningless tokens.

Let us look back to history around the time of the establishment of the United States. The 1798 Kentucky Resolution states “that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government . . . and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” The 1799 Virginia Resolution adds “that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties . . . and that, in case of . . . dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states . . have the right . . . to interpose . . for maintaining . . . the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them.” The federal government resulted from a compact of the member states. They lend the federal government its powers and are the ultimate judge of the use of those powers. To give the federal government universal authority to judge the legality of its own laws is illogical and dangerous.

Remember, people used to say "The United States of America are." The states are called states for a reason. They are not provinces, and they have legitimate power to check the federal government.
 
Last edited:
Nullification is another approach that the haters of the United States of America love.

And make no mistake about it, many of the players here who claim to be YSA patriots would prefer to livebe living in the 19th century CSA.
 
There is no such power nor should there be. And this harkens back to the Civil War when white gentlemen of good breeding and land thought they could own the designated 3/4 person. They thought they were above the Federal Government and started their own Confederation of States. That little action cost 600,000 lives in this country.

But this whole idea of balkanized states probably goes back to the concept of Monarchy. Where Kings would bestow Barons, Lords and other "noble" a good deal of land to rule with the promise they could collect taxes and the nobles would swear fealty to the King. Other then that the Nobles could pretty much do what they wanted. They basically had indentured servants and serfs catering to their needs and economy. More and more this is what conservatives are looking to turn the United States into. A Kingdom..or a Theocracy.
 
[It is only the law of the land if it is made in pursuance of the Constitution. If the federal government is attempting to use a power that should be delegated to the states, the state has the duty to follow the constitution and nullify the law for the sake of protecting its citizens. What kind of system would limit a central government and then give the central government the sole authority of interpreting those limits? It is laughable.


Sandford v. Scott was unconstitutional. You seem to be assuming the Supreme Court is infallible and always follows the Constitution. That is incorrect. That is the entire point of nullification, to check the Supreme Court.

Then the Supreme Court would be without a meaningful function. Thus if you support nullification, then you believe that the founders put a judicial branch into the document, and into the separation of powers,

without any power. That makes no sense whatsoever.
 
If only we had the power to nullify it all.

The States never had such authority, nor will or should they ever.

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court ruled that ‘nullification’ is un-Constitutional:
The states do have such authority, and should. The fact that the courts ruled nullification unconstitutional is moot. The courts also ruled at one time that a black man was property.

And that was remedied by Constitutional Amendment. The mechanism for 'fixing' the Constitution is IN the Constitution, but it is not nullification.

Let me try my question again. If states hold the power of nullification over the Constitution, what's the point of having a Constitution?
 
What if a State passes a law that the citizens of a county or a city or a township (etc.) believe is in violation of the State Constitution?

Should they be able to nullify that law? If the State Supreme Court upholds the law should they be able to ignore it anyway?
 
What if a State passes a law that the citizens of a county or a city or a township (etc.) believe is in violation of the State Constitution?

Should they be able to nullify that law? If the State Supreme Court upholds the law should they be able to ignore it anyway?

Actually..some do. They are called "Sovereign Citizens".

I mean shit..if you hate the country that much..fucking move.
 
They do hate this nation that is obvious.

I'm telling yas, what these guys really are supporters of the CSA.

Now they'll tell you they want this because the USA FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is corrupt.

But what they really want is to have smaller government units that are more EASILY browbeaten by their corporate masters and more easily corruptable.

They basically hate any representational government having POWER over their masters.
 
What if a State passes a law that the citizens of a county or a city or a township (etc.) believe is in violation of the State Constitution?

Should they be able to nullify that law? If the State Supreme Court upholds the law should they be able to ignore it anyway?

Actually..some do. They are called "Sovereign Citizens".

I mean shit..if you hate the country that much..fucking move.

Tim McVeigh.
 
What a bunch of whiners the right wing libertarian conservatives have become. Children who want to take their ball and go home. A union is a union and while it is tough to please everyone, destroying unity is for the stupid ideologues. Stuff for the thinking person below.

".... In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms." Gone With the Myths - NYTimes.com


Southern Arguments for and Against Secession from the Union - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

Agrument v Lincoln's position http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html

FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: Does the Constitution Permit the Blue States to Secede?


But this constant argument is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
AmericanHeritage.com / How the North Lost the Civil War

Scotus ruling on secession Texas v. White

Admission of state to union FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 16 of 18


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)
 
Last edited:
So it appears, after a nazi reference for good measure, ShackledNation has changed gears: It's not that nullification IS legal, it's that it SHOULD BE legal - the Supreme Court has been wrong in its interpretation since Marbury.

In other words, we're hearing what he wants to be true, not what's actually true.
 
Nullification is another approach that the haters of the United States of America love.

And make no mistake about it, many of the players here who claim to be YSA patriots would prefer to livebe living in the 19th century CSA.
I am a hater for agreeing with Jefferson?
 
There is no such power nor should there be. And this harkens back to the Civil War when white gentlemen of good breeding and land thought they could own the designated 3/4 person. They thought they were above the Federal Government and started their own Confederation of States. That little action cost 600,000 lives in this country.

But this whole idea of balkanized states probably goes back to the concept of Monarchy. Where Kings would bestow Barons, Lords and other "noble" a good deal of land to rule with the promise they could collect taxes and the nobles would swear fealty to the King. Other then that the Nobles could pretty much do what they wanted. They basically had indentured servants and serfs catering to their needs and economy. More and more this is what conservatives are looking to turn the United States into. A Kingdom..or a Theocracy.
Another example of complete ignorance of actual history. The 3/5 clause was actually instated by the north to give southern slave states less say in Congress. The South wanted slaves to be counted as full persons in representation (despite not giving them any legal rights). This would give the South more congressional seats. The north argued that slaves should not be counted as persons because they were not treated as such so the south could not get seats for people it did not allow to live freely.

Would you agree with the South?

Nullification was also used more so by the north than the south, contrary to common belief. In fact, nullification was used by the north against fugitive slave laws. It was used far before the Civil War by northern states against embargo's and the War of 1812.

Return this country to nobles and kings? That is such an ignorant thing to say. State governments are democratically elected according to their own constitutions. They have courts and executives. In reality the structure of each state government is not much different than the structure of the federal government. And their legislative bodies, by representing fewer people, are more representative of individual needs. As for you theocracy guilt by association argument, I am not a conservative so that argument has zero relevance.
 
[It is only the law of the land if it is made in pursuance of the Constitution. If the federal government is attempting to use a power that should be delegated to the states, the state has the duty to follow the constitution and nullify the law for the sake of protecting its citizens. What kind of system would limit a central government and then give the central government the sole authority of interpreting those limits? It is laughable.


Sandford v. Scott was unconstitutional. You seem to be assuming the Supreme Court is infallible and always follows the Constitution. That is incorrect. That is the entire point of nullification, to check the Supreme Court.

Then the Supreme Court would be without a meaningful function. Thus if you support nullification, then you believe that the founders put a judicial branch into the document, and into the separation of powers,

without any power. That makes no sense whatsoever.
That is probably the best argument made because you took the time to post something of substance rather than try and call me a racist or hater or idiot. I could turn it around and say the states have no power without nullification for they have no way to check unconstitutional use of federal power. I could say that would make the entire 10th amendment useless, as well as the concept of a federal system.

But is it true that nullification would result in a powerless supreme court? No. Many people wrongly assume nullification is the repeal of federal law. This is not true at all. remember that nullification is merely a suspension of federal law within the nullifying state's borders. If one state nullifies a federal law, it will remain active in all other states. If one state nullifies unjustly, the federal government and the other states would likely strongly pressure it to remove such nullification measures or risk losing federal aid, etc. And if the people of that state are unhappy, they can move to another one, destroying the tax base and economy that gives the state power.

In order for nullification to make the Supreme Court powerless, all 50 states would always have to nullify law together. That is unprecedented, and if such agreement occurs chances are the law is actually unconstitutional. I would rather have one state incorrectly nullify federal laws than a federal government incorrectly force upon all 50 states unconstitutional laws.


Also, the Supreme Court has much more power than ruling on the constitutionality of federal law. Here are the enumerated powers of the US Supreme Court in Article III.
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.
As you can see, they are far from powerless. They simply will not be the only power that can determine constitutionality of laws. As I said earlier, giving the federal government the sole authority to rule on the constitutionality of its own laws is insane and defeats the purpose of divided government.
 
The States never had such authority, nor will or should they ever.

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Court ruled that ‘nullification’ is un-Constitutional:
The states do have such authority, and should. The fact that the courts ruled nullification unconstitutional is moot. The courts also ruled at one time that a black man was property.

And that was remedied by Constitutional Amendment. The mechanism for 'fixing' the Constitution is IN the Constitution, but it is not nullification.

Let me try my question again. If states hold the power of nullification over the Constitution, what's the point of having a Constitution?
If the federal government has the sole authority of ruling on its own laws, what is the point of having a Constitution? If the Federal government is the sole interpreter of its own laws, the Constitution will be ignored. And history has proven that. The states entered into the agreement, and should have the ability to say when it has been broken. Believing otherwise is arguing against the federal system.
 
What if a State passes a law that the citizens of a county or a city or a township (etc.) believe is in violation of the State Constitution?

Should they be able to nullify that law? If the State Supreme Court upholds the law should they be able to ignore it anyway?
If the State Constitution does not prohibit such power, then hypothetically yes.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top