States have power to nullify federal laws. Time to use it

[bripat9643]

How is this working out for the states who have chosen to allow medicinal Mary Jane?

Not well. Federal jackboots will swoop in and confiscate products and revenue from state allowed businesses.

Like I said, the ratification of the constitution took away the states ability to have authority over their territory. The supreme law, laid bby federalists, make the determination on state laws. In short, the states are ceremonial, just like congress is quickly becoming ceremonial.

Totally wrong. Lincoln and federal troops took away the right of states to have authority over their own territory, not the Constitution.

You don't know jack about the history of this country.

 

[bripat9643]

Secession, the only answer. LOL

That's what the civil war was really about - the right to scede. America was founded on that right. I'd like to see all the states west of the mississippi secede, excepting CA of course.

Secession is treason.

No it isn't. Read the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

That's what the civil war was really about - the right to scede. America was founded on that right. I'd like to see all the states west of the mississippi secede, excepting CA of course.

Secession is treason.

Secession is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and the president and Congress have the authority to enforce it.

Wrong.

 

[The T]

We gave up the states position when we rattified the constitution "for the benefit of the union".

Go read the anti-federalist papers. They knew full well this is where it would lead to.

So where does the constitution say federal courts have the authority to nullify state laws?

See Maubury v. Madison...The role was ASSUMED by the SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We gave up the states position when we rattified the constitution "for the benefit of the union". Go read the anti-federalist papers. They knew full well this is where it would lead to.

No we didn't. Before the Civil War states commonly declined to enforce laws approved by Congress. Tariffs are a common example. The states only lost that ability when the tyrant Lincoln waged war on them and invaded them.

The issue is settled, almost 147 years of settled. Now sit down, please.

 

[The T]

We gave up the states position when we rattified the constitution "for the benefit of the union".

Go read the anti-federalist papers. They knew full well this is where it would lead to.

No we didn't. Before the Civil War states commonly declined to enforce laws approved by Congress. Tariffs are a common example. The states only lost that ability when the tyrant Lincoln waged war on them and invaded them.

Indeed. and suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus isn't to be taken lightly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We gave up the states position when we rattified the constitution "for the benefit of the union".

Go read the anti-federalist papers. They knew full well this is where it would lead to.

So where does the constitution say federal courts have the authority to nullify state laws?

Here:

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

 

[bripat9643]

We gave up the states position when we rattified the constitution "for the benefit of the union". Go read the anti-federalist papers. They knew full well this is where it would lead to.

No we didn't. Before the Civil War states commonly declined to enforce laws approved by Congress. Tariffs are a common example. The states only lost that ability when the tyrant Lincoln waged war on them and invaded them.

The issue is settled, almost 147 years of settled. Now sit down, please.

It's never settled so long as one person knows the truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No we didn't. Before the Civil War states commonly declined to enforce laws approved by Congress. Tariffs are a common example. The states only lost that ability when the tyrant Lincoln waged war on them and invaded them.

The issue is settled, almost 147 years of settled. Now sit down, please.

It's never settled so long as one person knows the truth.

The truth is this: it is settled. You have the right to your opinion, but not to your own facts or your own definitions.

 

[bripat9643]

We gave up the states position when we rattified the constitution "for the benefit of the union".

Go read the anti-federalist papers. They knew full well this is where it would lead to.

So where does the constitution say federal courts have the authority to nullify state laws?

Here:

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

You quoted an appointed political hack, not the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

The issue is settled, almost 147 years of settled. Now sit down, please.

It's never settled so long as one person knows the truth.

The truth is this: it is settled. You have the right to your opinion, but not to your own facts or your own definitions.

That isn't the truth, fakey. Your opinion is not fact. Invariably, the facts are the exact opposite of your opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

How is this working out for the states who have chosen to allow medicinal Mary Jane?

Not well. Federal jackboots will swoop in and confiscate products and revenue from state allowed businesses.

Like I said, the ratification of the constitution took away the states ability to have authority over their territory. The supreme law, laid bby federalists, make the determination on state laws. In short, the states are ceremonial, just like congress is quickly becoming ceremonial.

Totally wrong. Lincoln and federal troops took away the right of states to have authority over their own territory, not the Constitution.

You don't know jack about the history of this country.

States proved they were incapable of protecting the rights of their citizens. Thankfully, the centralized Federal Government slapped them around and showed then who runs this country

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So where does the constitution say federal courts have the authority to nullify state laws?

Here:

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

You quoted an appointed political hack, not the Constitution.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, by virtue of its interpretive authority per judicial review.

Yes, we know: the radical right doesn’t ‘believe’ in the principle of judicial review, making conservatives that much more extreme and irrelevant.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So where does the constitution say federal courts have the authority to nullify state laws?

Here:

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

You quoted an appointed political hack, not the Constitution.

I totally agree with you. That is why there was a riff at the convention over this very thing. Unfortunately, the tyrants won long ago.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Secession is treason.

Secession is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and the president and Congress have the authority to enforce it.

Wrong.

Actually, you're wrong and NYcarbineer is correct, secession is un-Constitutional. See:
Texas v. White

 

[Inthemiddle]

The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the constittuion give them that authority.

Perhaps you missed the part were judicial power is given to the Judicial branch of the government.

That says federal laws are supreme ONLY if made in pursuance of the constitution. So any state has the right so declare a federal law in violation of the constitution and void.

No, it doesn't. Someone lied to you.

Remember the states came first and they created the federal govt merely to act as their agent in selected matters such as fighting a war. In no way did they want the federal govt put above the states.

If that were true, they would have stayed with the AOC. Run along now, Skippy. Your "fuck the establishment" babble has been tried by countless angsty teen before you, and it ain't working any better for you than it did for them.

 

[Oddball]

States have power to nullify federal laws. Time to use it

Too bad that most state legislatures are populated with a bunch of pussies.

Better that WE THE PEOPLE, via the jury box, do the nullifying.

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[Inthemiddle]

Secession is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and the president and Congress have the authority to enforce it.

Wrong.

Actually, you're wrong and NYcarbineer is correct, secession is un-Constitutional. See:
Texas v. White

Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't make it treason.

 

[Charles_Main]

The federal Supreme Court frequently nullifies state laws as they did with portions of the AZ anti-illegal law, but no where does the constittuion give them that authority. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says in Article 6

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.

That says federal laws are supreme ONLY if made in pursuance of the constitution. So any state has the right so declare a federal law in violation of the constitution and void.

Remember the states came first and they created the federal govt merely to act as their agent in selected matters such as fighting a war. In no way did they want the federal govt put above the states.

You are part right, where you went wrong is saying states can Determine if a law is unconstitutional. That Power is clearly given only to the Federal Courts not Individual states.

Kinda a Catch 22. The Constitution says States do not have to Uphold Unconstitutional Federal laws, But it does not say anything about the States being able to Decide which laws they think are Constitutional. So since it is not Implied, then they must not have the power. Because the Power is instead specifically given to the Federal Judiciary.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong.

Actually, you're wrong and NYcarbineer is correct, secession is un-Constitutional. See:
Texas v. White

Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't make it treason.

It doesn’t make any difference, a state remains a state in the Union even during times of ‘rebellion.’