Will the states enact nullification legislation?

[HyenaKiller]

I found this on another political forum, by Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center:

"For the past few days, I’ve received loads of emails urging me to get active regarding the healthcare vote – most of which had a subject line similar to: 'Last Chance to Stop National Healthcare!'

"Well, if you believe the only way to protect your rights is by begging federal politicians to do what you want, then these emails are certainly right. The vote went as expected, and so will the next.

"So if you think marching on D.C. or calling your Representatives, or threating to 'throw the bums out' in 2010 or 2012 or 20-whatever, is going to further the cause of the Constitution and your liberty – you might as well get your shackles on now. Your last chance has come and gone.

"But, those of you who visit this site regularly already know that the Senate’s health care vote is far from the end of things – and you also know that even when it goes into effect (which I assume some version will), it’s still not the end of the road for your freedom.

"The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us 'permission' to or not.

"Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

"It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

"Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

"20 States resisting DC can do what calling, marching, yelling, faxing, and emailing has almost never done. Stop the feds dead in their tracks.

"For example, 13 states are already defying federal marijuana prohibition, and the federal government is having such a hard time dealing with it that the Obama administration recently announced that they would no longer prioritize enforcement in states that have medical marijuana laws.

"Better yet, in the last 2+ years more than 20 states have been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented. How did they do that? They passed laws and resolutions refusing to comply with it. And today, it’s effectively null and void without ever being repealed by Congress or challenged in court.

"While the Obama administration would like to revive it under a different name, the reality is still there – with massive state-level resistance, the federal government can be pushed back inside its constitutional box. Issue by issue, law by law, the best way to change the federal government is by resisting it on a state level.

"That’s nullification at work.

"Over the years, wise men and women warned us that the Constitution would never enforce itself. The time is long overdue for people to start recognizing this fact, and bring that enforcement closer to home.

"The bottom line? If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

"Thomas Jefferson would be proud!"

 

[HyenaKiller]

This is our way to stop this ugly bill.

 

[oreo]

This is our way to stop this ugly bill.

It's an interesting concept--but I think the individual states that decide to do something like this--will have their feet to the fire--to come up with a better health reform bill than offered by the federal government.

 

[HyenaKiller]

This is our way to stop this ugly bill.

It's an interesting concept--but I think the individual states that decide to do something like this--will have their feet to the fire--to come up with a better health reform bill than offered by the federal government.

No bill is better then this bill

 

[FA_Q2]

^ agreed

 

[Joe Steel]

"The bottom line? If you want to make real change; if you want to really do something for liberty and for the Constitution…focus on local activism and your state governments.

You'd better read Article VI of the US Constitution first.

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.

Nullification is nonsense.

 

[FA_Q2]

Nullification is nonsense.

Explanation, references, anything useful? Or are you just blowing smoke?

 

[Navy1960]

Article VI only applies when a LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL it does not apply when a law is unconstitutional , every court case from the Marshall Court to the current one has affirmed that principle so nullfication is a very real possibility. Fuirther, in the case of REAL ID which was passed by the Bush Administration many states openly opposed it and even passed laws that nullified it. Did the Fed. actually step in and use Article VI as a means to enforce it? the answer is no, actually the Fed. as recently as March of this year when announced by the Obama Administration is planning on nullifying the law itself. So yes, nullification is very real and is a very legitimate means to oppose "unconstitutional" legislation. This claim that Article VI or for that matter the commerce clause gives the Fed. unlimted power is complete nonsense and case law does not support it.

 

[Joe Steel]

Nullification is nonsense.

Explanation, references, anything useful? Or are you just blowing smoke?

You didn't see the portion of Article VI I posted?

 

[Joe Steel]

Article VI only applies when a LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL it does not apply when a law is unconstitutional , every court case from the Marshall Court to the current one has affirmed that principle so nullfication is a very real possibility.

When a law is deemed to be unconstitutional, it may be challenged in court. That is not the same thing as nullification. Nuffication is setting-aside a valid law for reasons other than consitutionality.

 

[Navy1960]

McCulloch v. Maryland

Justice Marshall

''the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.''

The Supremacy Clause also requires state legislatures to take into account policies adopted by the federal government. Two issues arise when STATE ACTION is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. The second issue is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to PREEMPT state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist.

 

[Navy1960]

Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

20 States resisting DC can do what calling, marching, yelling, faxing, and emailing has almost never done. Stop the feds dead in their tracks.

For example, 13 states are already defying federal marijuana prohibition, and the federal government is having such a hard time dealing with it that the Obama administration recently announced that they would no longer prioritize enforcement in states that have medical marijuana laws.

Better yet, in the last 2+ years more than 20 states have been able to effectively prevent the Real ID Act of 2005 from being implemented. How did they do that? They passed laws and resolutions refusing to comply with it. And today, it’s effectively null and void without ever being repealed by Congress or challenged in court.
Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway

 

[slackjawed]

In an interesting conversation I had yesterday in person with an person who is a teacher, I was informed that she believes that the federal government holds all the power over the states. She holds the opinion that the states only exist because the federal government allows them to exist. She maintains that the states are just a way for the federal government to administer their power.
This is what she teaches her students.
I argued that the states banded together and formed the federal government and could conceivably revoke that power.
I was informed that we live in a "new world" and that kind of thinking is just for 'dinosaurs'. I was then reminded of what happened to the dinosaurs.
No wonder so many are so uninformed about how our government works, it's taught in our schools.

 

[Navy1960]

In an interesting conversation I had yesterday in person with an person who is a teacher, I was informed that she believes that the federal government holds all the power over the states. She holds the opinion that the states only exist because the federal government allows them to exist. She maintains that the states are just a way for the federal government to administer their power.
This is what she teaches her students.
I argued that the states banded together and formed the federal government and could conceivably revoke that power.
I was informed that we live in a "new world" and that kind of thinking is just for 'dinosaurs'. I was then reminded of what happened to the dinosaurs.
No wonder so many are so uninformed about how our government works, it's taught in our schools.

Thats not very surprising, next time you talk to them, point this out.

Texas v. White.

the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,

and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [n12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Texas v. White

JAMES MADISON: There are a number of opinions, but the principal question is whether it be a federal or a consolidated government.... I conceive myself that it is of a mixed nature; it is in a manner unprecedented; we cannot find one express example in the experience of the world. It stands by itself. In some respects it is a government of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidated nature. Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are the parties to it? The people - but not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment; and, as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining states would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously rejected it.... But, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen states of America, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect the distinction between the existing and the proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent derivative authority of the legislatures of the states; whereas, this is derived from the superior power of the people.

I wish this government may answer the expectation of its friends and foil the apprehension of its enemies. I hope the patriotism of the people will continue and be a sufficient guard to their liberties. I believe its tendency will be that the state governments will counteract the general interest and ultimately prevail.

Maybe your friend who hopefully is not a history teacher understands that Texas v. White to this day is the only thing that would preclude a state from leaving the union save for outright revolt.

 

[veritas]

In an interesting conversation I had yesterday in person with an person who is a teacher, I was informed that she believes that the federal government holds all the power over the states. She holds the opinion that the states only exist because the federal government allows them to exist. She maintains that the states are just a way for the federal government to administer their power.
This is what she teaches her students.
I argued that the states banded together and formed the federal government and could conceivably revoke that power.
I was informed that we live in a "new world" and that kind of thinking is just for 'dinosaurs'. I was then reminded of what happened to the dinosaurs.
No wonder so many are so uninformed about how our government works, it's taught in our schools.

If you look at the Patriot Act and Title 18 and the special powers granted to FEMA, you would probably come to the same conclusion. One of the essential tenets/bases for our government is police power, ie., the ability to enforce laws [on the Federal level] which means that we have a standing army, national guard etc, which all come under the purview of FEMA at this point when concerning the US. Now you're thinking posse comitatus enters into it, but that's all gone with the PA. It's all online to read. I suggest you study it.

 

[Joe Steel]

McCulloch v. Maryland

Justice Marshall

''the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.''

The Supremacy Clause also requires state legislatures to take into account policies adopted by the federal government. Two issues arise when STATE ACTION is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. The second issue is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to PREEMPT state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist.

Questions of constitutionality are to be determined in court.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--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.

Article III, Section 2, US Constitution.

 

[Joe Steel]

In an interesting conversation I had yesterday in person with an person who is a teacher, I was informed that she believes that the federal government holds all the power over the states.

It does.

She holds the opinion that the states only exist because the federal government allows them to exist. She maintains that the states are just a way for the federal government to administer their power.

That's the way it should be but, alas, it is not.

This is what she teaches her students.

I argued that the states banded together and formed the federal government and could conceivably revoke that power.

You are wrong.

Note the words "We the People....do ordain and establish this Constitution...

It's not "We the States..."

 

[slackjawed]

I await the decision of the supreme court where this will surely be heard.
As I said before, this will be interesting to watch.

 

[Navy1960]

I'm not dusputing the fact that constitutional questions are determined by the court, however, if a law is passed by congress and the state passes a nullification law that opposes it. That is why you have judicial review, if your claiming that Article VI holds sway over state law that is on contention you would be wrong until such time that Jusdicial review has been concluded. Even in such cases as with Marijuana Laws that are currently being nullfied by 13 states and Real ID thats being nullified by 20 states , the Federal Govt. has ceeded that because they cannot enforce such laws that it renders them null. There are many paths in which nullification can work, in the case here in Arizona for example, while the law iself does not prevent a person from exercising their rights under a healthcare bill passed by the Federal Govt. it prevents the Federal Govt. from using that law to enforce it upon those who do not wish to participate in a healthcare program. I will point out to you the following...

The Judiciary Act (Section 13)
The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

There are literally 100's of cases in which the Supreme Court has rendered congressional legislation unconstitutional and therefor not subject to Article VI. Let's suppose for a moment your correct that Article VI gives congress unlimted power, then congress could pass a law confiscating all of your property without regard to any other provision in the constitution and hope that its never subject to any Judicial review.

 

[Navy1960]

I also find it interesting that people would equate the statement " We the people" to mean Federal authority. I would invite them to read the following.....


Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Anyone who thinks for one moment that this nation was formed as a whole and the states are just mere territories are know very little of what the people that founded this nation intended then. In fact the election of US Senators up until recently were elected by those very same state legislatures. One more thing to consider when you think this nation is somehow this giant Federal entity, next time you go into a voting booth take a look and see who and what your actually voting for. We elect our president by the will of the states not the will of the population, so I would suggest that those who think states have little authority take into consideration that Federal authority is derived from the consent of the governed as is state authority.