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.
Very good. There are prohibitions to the states. But as I demonstrated, secession and interposition are not prohibited. Somehow you think they are, which is what you need to explain.You are something else. You cannot explain why what you gave me proves your point. It doesn't.
Article I Section 8 has nothing to do with secession or interposition.
Section 10 says no state may enter into a confederation, not that a state cannot secede or nullify law. (after a state secedes, it will no longer be part of the union, so it will no longer have to follow the Constitution. A state may not remain part of the union and make alliances with another union as well).
Treason has nothing to do with nullification or secession, because treason is defined is giving aid to enemies or declaring war on the United States.
The supremacy clause states the Constitution trumps state law contrary to it, which is correct. But the Constitution does not prohibit nullification or secession, so states supporting such policies are not violating the supremacy clause.
You are simply incorrect.
Explain what?
Look at what I posted.
There are prohibitions to the states.
This was all settled during the civil war as well.
Now that is a good argument. But there is still a problem. When a state secedes it no longer is bound by the constitution. All of the unconstitutional state powers you listed come after the secession itself. States cannot do those things while part of the union. They can if they choose to secede, but they forfeit any benefits of the union as well. Secession is not a prohibited power.Very good. There are prohibitions to the states. But as I demonstrated, secession and interposition are not prohibited. Somehow you think they are, which is what you need to explain.Explain what?
Look at what I posted.
There are prohibitions to the states.
This was all settled during the civil war as well.
They sure as heck are..
States are prohibited from coining money, forming unions with other states, or insurrection, which, other then trying to get a bill through congress that allows for secession, would be the only way to secede.
Exactly right. The constitution is supreme, not the federal government. Because of this, if the federal government passes an unconstitutional law, the states must hold the constitution above the federal law, nullifying it within the state to protect the sovereignty of the people.And the Constitution is supreme. States cannot willy nilly decide they are not going to obey federal laws..or the President.
It's pretty clear.
Now that is a good argument. But there is still a problem. When a state secedes it no longer is bound by the constitution. All of the unconstitutional state powers you listed come after the secession itself. States cannot do those things while part of the union. They can if they choose to secede, but they forfeit any benefits of the union as well. Secession is not a prohibited power.Very good. There are prohibitions to the states. But as I demonstrated, secession and interposition are not prohibited. Somehow you think they are, which is what you need to explain.
They sure as heck are..
States are prohibited from coining money, forming unions with other states, or insurrection, which, other then trying to get a bill through congress that allows for secession, would be the only way to secede.
Exactly right. The constitution is supreme, not the federal government. Because of this, if the federal government passes an unconstitutional law, the states must hold the constitution above the federal law, nullifying it within the state to protect the sovereignty of the people.And the Constitution is supreme. States cannot willy nilly decide they are not going to obey federal laws..or the President.
It's pretty clear.
OK, now that is funny.This Poll is not fair. Because everyone knows Democrats Vote more than once. So those 16 Votes for Obama are more like 8 or less. This Poll is rigged. I demand a Re-Count!
Now that is a good argument. But there is still a problem. When a state secedes it no longer is bound by the constitution. All of the unconstitutional state powers you listed come after the secession itself. States cannot do those things while part of the union. They can if they choose to secede, but they forfeit any benefits of the union as well. Secession is not a prohibited power.They sure as heck are..
States are prohibited from coining money, forming unions with other states, or insurrection, which, other then trying to get a bill through congress that allows for secession, would be the only way to secede.
Exactly right. The constitution is supreme, not the federal government. Because of this, if the federal government passes an unconstitutional law, the states must hold the constitution above the federal law, nullifying it within the state to protect the sovereignty of the people.And the Constitution is supreme. States cannot willy nilly decide they are not going to obey federal laws..or the President.
It's pretty clear.
Bottom line is when a state secedes..without a bill from Congress..they are in violation of the Constitution.
Perry can be President of Texas after his dream of succession is realized.
That bottom line is what I just refuted and in response you repeated it.Now that is a good argument. But there is still a problem. When a state secedes it no longer is bound by the constitution. All of the unconstitutional state powers you listed come after the secession itself. States cannot do those things while part of the union. They can if they choose to secede, but they forfeit any benefits of the union as well. Secession is not a prohibited power.They sure as heck are..
States are prohibited from coining money, forming unions with other states, or insurrection, which, other then trying to get a bill through congress that allows for secession, would be the only way to secede.
Exactly right. The constitution is supreme, not the federal government. Because of this, if the federal government passes an unconstitutional law, the states must hold the constitution above the federal law, nullifying it within the state to protect the sovereignty of the people.And the Constitution is supreme. States cannot willy nilly decide they are not going to obey federal laws..or the President.
It's pretty clear.
Bottom line is when a state secedes..without a bill from Congress..they are in violation of the Constitution.
Section 1 doesn't address the question of secession at all, it talks about judicial power.Now that is a good argument. But there is still a problem. When a state secedes it no longer is bound by the constitution. All of the unconstitutional state powers you listed come after the secession itself. States cannot do those things while part of the union. They can if they choose to secede, but they forfeit any benefits of the union as well. Secession is not a prohibited power.
Exactly right. The constitution is supreme, not the federal government. Because of this, if the federal government passes an unconstitutional law, the states must hold the constitution above the federal law, nullifying it within the state to protect the sovereignty of the people.
Bottom line is when a state secedes..without a bill from Congress..they are in violation of the Constitution.
Just so. A state never has the power to decide what is constitutional at all. That power belongs to the federal government, namely SCOTUS. Read Article III very carefully. You will find no 10th Amendment exception there.
That Perry should wait, yes. That Perry is stronger against Obama, the polls disagree. Romney is beating Obama by 2 points in PA, while Obama beats Bachmann by 8 and Perry by 6 there in PA. Romney generally leads in most polls in the various states, though Perry leads in VA.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012
That bottom line is what I just refuted and in response you repeated it.Now that is a good argument. But there is still a problem. When a state secedes it no longer is bound by the constitution. All of the unconstitutional state powers you listed come after the secession itself. States cannot do those things while part of the union. They can if they choose to secede, but they forfeit any benefits of the union as well. Secession is not a prohibited power.
Exactly right. The constitution is supreme, not the federal government. Because of this, if the federal government passes an unconstitutional law, the states must hold the constitution above the federal law, nullifying it within the state to protect the sovereignty of the people.
Bottom line is when a state secedes..without a bill from Congress..they are in violation of the Constitution.
Section 1 doesn't address the question of secession at all, it talks about judicial power.Bottom line is when a state secedes..without a bill from Congress..they are in violation of the Constitution.
Just so. A state never has the power to decide what is constitutional at all. That power belongs to the federal government, namely SCOTUS. Read Article III very carefully. You will find no 10th Amendment exception there.
Section 2 also talks about judicial power, and part of it was amended by the 11th amendment. The 11th amendment nor section 2 prohibits secession explicitly or implicitly.
Section 3 talks about treason, not secession. If you view secession as treason, you are incorrect. Treason is defined as an act of war against the United States or helping their enemies. Secession is not treason.
Perry can be President of Texas after his dream of succession is realized.
Will Stretch Pelosi be appointed governor of South California?
have u noticed how Rubio has become a bit more angry at O'Butthead? I hope he stays pissed at Obama for another year, intensifying each month,to the point where he will take the VP spot,,,JUST TO SPITE OBAMA !!! Then Obama and his boyfriend Charles Schumer will start wearing Depends,,,,A Perry/Rubio ticket spells LANDSLIDE !!!!!
Section 1 doesn't address the question of secession at all, it talks about judicial power.Bottom line is when a state secedes..without a bill from Congress..they are in violation of the Constitution.
Just so. A state never has the power to decide what is constitutional at all. That power belongs to the federal government, namely SCOTUS. Read Article III very carefully. You will find no 10th Amendment exception there.
Section 2 also talks about judicial power, and part of it was amended by the 11th amendment. The 11th amendment nor section 2 prohibits secession explicitly or implicitly.
Section 3 talks about treason, not secession. If you view secession as treason, you are incorrect. Treason is defined as an act of war against the United States or helping their enemies. Secession is not treason.
The Constitution enumerates federal powers. All powers not enumerated to the federal government are left to the states.That bottom line is what I just refuted and in response you repeated it.Bottom line is when a state secedes..without a bill from Congress..they are in violation of the Constitution.
Refuted what?
There is no Constitutional right for a state to secede, pick and choose which federal laws they follow or nullify a federal election.
All of which you listed I already displayed clearly do not allow that.There are plenty of remedies in the Constitution available to the Federal government to act against states that try that nonsense, as well.
Ad hominem is not an argument. You quoted the text and simply said "that is why I am right." You do not explain why. I proceeded to explain why your quoted text did not prove what you claimed. Your response? "You can't read English." That isn't sufficient.This is probably above your head somewhat. English must be a second language for you. I printed all the text that addressed these issues..straight out of the Constitution.
Treason is explicitly defined in the Constitution, article III section 3.Section 1 doesn't address the question of secession at all, it talks about judicial power.Just so. A state never has the power to decide what is constitutional at all. That power belongs to the federal government, namely SCOTUS. Read Article III very carefully. You will find no 10th Amendment exception there.
Section 2 also talks about judicial power, and part of it was amended by the 11th amendment. The 11th amendment nor section 2 prohibits secession explicitly or implicitly.
Section 3 talks about treason, not secession. If you view secession as treason, you are incorrect. Treason is defined as an act of war against the United States or helping their enemies. Secession is not treason.
SCOTUS has all original and appellate jurisdiction concerning the Constitution. The other material does not apply as you well know. Go back and read it all in its totality, please. Secession, implied or express, is not a state power. Secession is treason.
(caps are not mine, but bold is).But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.
In otherwords, your argument that the courts are supreme is wrong. Keep in mind this is a federalist talking, not a Jeffersonian. These guys were the ones arguing for less state control and more central powers. Even they made the same argument.Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.
This is the point. Unconstitutional law does not have to be declared unconstitutional by the courts to be void. It is, by default, void. Nullification is the refusal to enforce a void law.There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
