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

[Charles_Main]

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.

Yep, Reconstruction was a mistake, But it's funny listening to you Bitch about the "Radical" Republicans back then. Want to talk about who the Democrats were back then? The side that lost the war, that's who. lol

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Wow....almost 150 years and the decision still stands

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wow....almost 150 years and the decision still stands

How does that prove it was correct? It stands because the Republicans controlled the federal government for the next 50 years. That's the only reason it stands.

 

[Oddball]

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."

Not even.

A revolution would be a fight to control one seat of government...The misnamed "Civil War" was one group breaking away and forming their own separate governance.

The former Confederate states were, as a matter of course, "readmitted" at the point of a gun.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Wow....almost 150 years and the decision still stands

How does that prove it was correct? It stands because the Republicans controlled the federal government for the next 50 years. That's the only reason it stands.

Hate to break it to you Libertarians.......but your view of the Constitution sucks

You have had 200 years to force the interpretation you follow and have achieved squat

No court supports your opinion, the American people don't believe in your opinion

You FAIL

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Yep, Reconstruction was a mistake, But it's funny listening to you Bitch about the "Radical" Republicans back then. Want to talk about who the Democrats were back then? The side that lost the war, that's who. lol

Yup, the enemy democrats lost the war, thank God, and it was Lincoln who fused a Unionist effort of conservative and moderate and radical Republicans, and northern democrats, and former whigs, and former liberty party followers.

Lincoln, the Republican, was magnificent.

Romney is no Lincoln, but so much superior to an Obama or a Santorum.

We simply cannot afford the extremists from both ends of the spectrum to have any real say other than their votes, to which they are entitled.

 

[jillian]

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.

No states do NOT have the power to nullify federal law.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

why do you hate the constitution?

 

[bripat9643]

Wow....almost 150 years and the decision still stands

How does that prove it was correct? It stands because the Republicans controlled the federal government for the next 50 years. That's the only reason it stands.

Hate to break it to you Libertarians.......but your view of the Constitution sucks

You have had 200 years to force the interpretation you follow and have achieved squat

No court supports your opinion, the American people don't believe in your opinion

You FAIL

It can often take 1000 years for the public to understand the rightness of a given idea. How long did it take before the majority agreed that slavery was immoral?

Agreeing with the mob doesn't not make you right or smart.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are no great mind, bripat, and a 1000 years from now, no one will know that you sillies ever existed.

 

[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.

No states do NOT have the power to nullify federal law.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

why do you hate the constitution?

"Made in pursuance thereof" goes back to Article 1, Section 8.

No federal jurisdiction, via those specifically enumerated powers, no supremacy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No states do NOT have the power to nullify federal law.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

why do you hate the constitution?

According to your understanding of the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn any law passed by Congress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oddball and birpat have just demonstrated that they are no constitutional scholars, have demonstrated they does not know the constitutional narrative, but have demonstrated they are here for grins and chuckles.

 

[Oddball]

Oddball has just demonstrated that he is no constitutional scholar, has demonstrated he does not know the constitutional narrative, but has demonstrated he is here for grins and chuckles.

You just demonstrated that you cannot comprehend the English language.

 

[bripat9643]

You are no great mind, bripat, and a 1000 years from now, no one will know that you sillies ever existed.

I have never made any such claim, Fakey. However, of one thing I'm certain: my mind is far superior to the shriveled up lump of snot you use for thinking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat and Oddball continue the wacka wacka patter. What a couple of jokers. Tis what tis.

 

[rightwinger]

How does that prove it was correct? It stands because the Republicans controlled the federal government for the next 50 years. That's the only reason it stands.

Hate to break it to you Libertarians.......but your view of the Constitution sucks

You have had 200 years to force the interpretation you follow and have achieved squat

No court supports your opinion, the American people don't believe in your opinion

You FAIL

It can often take 1000 years for the public to understand the rightness of a given idea. How long did it take before the majority agreed that slavery was immoral.

Agreeing with the mob doesn't not make you right or smart.

Sorry Fingerboy

Your interpretation of our Constitution and our laws are not accepted by anyone. You have yet to convince a single judge or lawmaker to reverse our laws

You are pissing in the wind

 

[Oddball]

bripat and Oddball continue the wacka wacka patter. What a couple of jokers. Tis what tis.

Address the point, troll.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point has been addressed, Oddtroll. You are not mainstream, your theories are not constitutional, your libertarianism is at odds with the American narrative. It is what it is.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

If you read the decision, the court says that union between the states is perpetual, and that it cannot be dissolved except through consent of the states, or by revolution.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not even.

A revolution would be a fight to control one seat of government...The misnamed "Civil War" was one group breaking away and forming their own separate governance.

The former Confederate states were, as a matter of course, "readmitted" at the point of a gun.

In that case, the American Revolution wasn't really a revolution.