B. Kidd
Diamond Member
It would be cool to live in a state that does not recognize corporations as having the same rights as individuals.
Don't you think so?
Don't you think so?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.
If only we had the power to nullify it all.
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
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.
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.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:
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
[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.
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.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:
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.
I am a hater for agreeing with Jefferson?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.
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.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.
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.[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.
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.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.
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.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.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:
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 State Constitution does not prohibit such power, then hypothetically yes.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?