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

[JakeStarkey]

The libers and extremists are fun to watch, stamping their widdle feet with red-rimmed widdle eyes, all a'fumin. Screw em if they can't handle it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Good luck getting any court to agree with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.

 

[Oddball]

Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.

So are FDR, Wilson and LBJ.

 

[bripat9643]

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

ROFL! Texas vs. White was decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointees. It is one of the most obviously wrong decisions the Court has ever rendered.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Good luck getting any court to agree with you.

We don't need corrupt judges telling us what to do.

Start acquitting and hanging juries.

 

[bripat9643]

Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.

Calhoun is dead, not his ideas. They are quite relevant. Your ideas, on the other hand, are as relevant as Joseph Stalin's.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

I disagree. The Constitution, as written, did not take away the respective states powers. The bastardization of the Constitution, along with judicial activism and overall apathy and ignorance by "We The People," have been the catalyst for the issue at hand.

 

[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.

Good luck getting any court to agree with you.

They would agree with him in so far as a state does not have to Uphold an Unconstitutional Federal Law, They would not agree with him that said States have any Power to Determine if a law is Constitutional.

He is making the Same mistake made by so many when reading the Constitution. It can get you in trouble if you only read parts of it and go off at the Mouth about what they mean.

I can see where he get's the Idea that States can Nullify Federal Law from the Small Section he quoted. But had he bothered to read the Part about the Federal Judiciary he would know that they are specifically given the Power to Decide the Constitutionality of Laws. Therefore since the Power is Specifically "Implied" to a Branch of the Federal government, it therefore Does not Fall to the States. Therefore States have NO POWER at all to Nullify Federal Law, Unless that law has been determined to be Unconstitutional by the Courts. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.

Calhoun is dead, not his ideas. They are quite relevant. Your ideas, on the other hand, are as relevant as Joseph Stalin's.

Your philosophy politically is phantastical, son, and you did not have the right to your own facts and definitions. You are not relevant, period. Just the way it is.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.’

I understand that. But secession is not inherently treasonous, is my point. Occupied wasn't right to claim that. It's entirely possible for a state to declare secession but do so peacefully. No actual deed against the federal government, like waging war, etc, need be present to make a secession attempt.

 

[bripat9643]

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.’

If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Raise up against the government, wacks, and find out what is reality.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

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.

Attempting to leave the union of the respective states (in and of itself) is not "treason." Trying to overthrow the government of the united states by force would be considered "treason."

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.’

If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?

Lincoln believed so, Johnson believed so, but the Radical Republicans said the southern states (other than TN) had to "reconstructed" and repentant and make restitution before they could be readmitted to the Union.

And, actually . . . secession is treason.

 

[bripat9643]

Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.

Calhoun is dead, not his ideas. They are quite relevant. Your ideas, on the other hand, are as relevant as Joseph Stalin's.

Your philosophy politically is phantastical, son, and you did not have the right to your own facts and definitions. You are not relevant, period. Just the way it is.

You're an imbecile, Fakey. Your argument amounts to saying "your stupid. PHHHHHHHT!"

Such "logic" is the height of intellectual sophistication, in your eyes.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.’

If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?

It could be argued that the answer is because the Civil War surpassed the threshold of "rebellion" and into "revolution."

 

[bripat9643]

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

If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?

Lincoln believed so, Johnson believed so, but the Radical Republicans said the southern states (other than TN) had to "reconstructed" and repentant and make restitution before they could be readmitted to the Union.

And, actually . . . secession is treason.

No it's not. Read the definition of treason in the Constitution.

You need to tell Clayton Jones that states don't remain in the union during a rebellion, not me. He's the one who disagrees with your understanding.

 

[bripat9643]

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

If that's true then why did the Confederate states have to apply for "readmission" to the union? Where they part of the union before they were readmitted?

It could be argued that the answer is because the Civil War surpassed the threshold of "rebellion" and into "revolution."

It did neither, and even if it did that wouldn't explain Clayton Jones' claim that states remain in the union regardless of any circumstances.

That is precisely one of the principle claims made by the majority in White vs Texas, and it's the proof that the decision is farce.

 

[bripat9643]

Shooters is a philosophical phan of John C. Calhoun, and his ideas are as relevant as are Calhoun's: dead.

Calhoun is dead, not his ideas. They are quite relevant. Your ideas, on the other hand, are as relevant as Joseph Stalin's.

Your philosophy politically is phantastical, son, and you did not have the right to your own facts and definitions. You are not relevant, period. Just the way it is.

yeah, we know, Fakey: "I'm right and you're stupid!"

Please spare us your stunning brilliance in the future. We fail to be impressed.