Will the states enact nullification legislation?

[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.

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..."

Thanks for reinforcing the point I was making.
It is "we the people' and the "UNITED States". The states formed the federal government as defined in the constitution.
The socialists want to rewrite history and make the federal government all-powerful.
I believe that group includes you.
I don't blame you though. This is, as I was pointing out, a failure of our schools.
As I said before, we need to call all the oath keepers into duty to defend our country, maybe even from kids like you.

 

[veritas]

Thanks for reinforcing the point I was making.
It is "we the people' and the "UNITED States". The states formed the federal government as defined in the constitution.
The socialists want to rewrite history and make the federal government all-powerful.

The Federal gov't IS all powerful. What state can opt out of a war? None. What state can get a divorce? None. It would come to armed conflict. There is no disbanding. So the Federal gov't gets all the benefits and none of the crap........the crap goes to the states. The states are not equal. A very few are a whole lot better than the rest. They have better laws, better education, better healthcare, better environments, better business and are just better overall.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is an interesting thread.

A federal court will review the constitutionality of federal laws. No federal court will give standing to any state nullification law. Any such will simply be dismissed at the lowest level and then refused further reviewal at higher levels.

In other words, nullification is a null issue from the start.

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

The judiciary does not review laws until someone sues someone. Nullification is an attempt to substitute a legislative process for a judicial process.

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.

That's a matter of practicality not nullification.

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...

What Arizona law "prevents the Federal Govt. from using that law to enforce it upon those who do not wish to participate in a healthcare program." To my knowledge, no such Arizona law haw been enacted.

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.

Sure. Laws found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are not enforceable in the States but that's not nullification.

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.

That's doubtful. Rules of construction presume an instrument to be internally consistent; no part of it can be contradictory to any other part.

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

The Tenth Amendment is functionally meaningless. It merely states a fundamental reality, something not in one place must be in another place if it exists at all. Without a list of powers reserved to the States or to the People, the question of locus remains open.

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.

Denying the existence of the States would be silly. Obviously, they exist. The issue is relative power. While conservatives would like to believe, the states, either collectively or severally, are the equal of the United States, in fact, they are subordinate. The United States, in both the letter and the spirit of the law, is supreme.

 

[Joe Steel]

This is an interesting thread.

A federal court will review the constitutionality of federal laws. No federal court will give standing to any state nullification law. Any such will simply be dismissed at the lowest level and then refused further reviewal at higher levels.

In other words, nullification is a null issue from the start.

Exactly. Nullification is just another fairytale from Conservative mythology.

 

[Navy1960]

In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.

During the first two administrations, President George Washington and President John Adams appointed only Federalist Party members to administration and judiciary positions. When Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election, President Adams, a Federalist, proceeded to rapidly fill the judiciary bench with members of his own party, who would serve for life during "good behavior." In response, Jeffersonian Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created several new judgeships and circuit courts with Federalist judges, and threatened impeachment if the Supreme Court overturned the repeal statute.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions;


Jefferson and Madison asserted in the resolves that state legislatures had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the mandate of the Constitution. Under their compact theory of the Constitution, they argued that the grant of power to the federal government was in the nature of an authorization to act as an agent for the individual state legislatures. The resolves maintained that the individual state legislatures retained the ultimate sovereignty of the people. Therefore, state legislatures, as equal parties to the Constitution, had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the original agency directives, and they had the right to declare noncompliance. Jefferson and Madison also argued that the states had the right to be released from the compact (the Constitution) if compliance was not forthcoming, thereby suggesting that secession from the Union was legitimate.

Virginia and Kentucky Resolves

I would hardly call history a myth by any stretch of the imagination and as for your assertions on the Arizona law that has passed both the House and the Senate here, and is set to go on 2010 ballot that law will "nullify" portions of the proposed healthcare bill, especially the mandate portion. Your take on the 10th Amendment is an interesting one to be sure and falls right in line with the "living document" theorists of the constitution as well as with the Hamilton views of the consitution which were for the most part rejected until the FDR Adminstration. If your assertion on the 10th is correct then the need to elect a President though the process of state by state elections would be rendered mute and to my knowledge this has not happened as of yet. Further, on the matter of nullification when it comes to the above mentioned state on Marijuna laws and Real ID. , those states have passed laws that run in direct contradiction to Federal Law and nullify it, so yes nullification is a valid method of asserting states rights and is only a myth in the minds of those who see this nation as a stateless entity or the states as mere subjects to Federal authority.

The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. This ordinance declared, by the power of the State itself, that the federal Tariff of 1828 and the federal Tariff of 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of South Carolina. The controversial, and highly protective, Tariff of 1828 (also called the "Tariff of Abominations") was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Opposed in the South and parts of New England, the tariff’s opponents expected that the election of Jackson as President would result in the tariff being significantly reduced.[1]

The nation had suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its British competition. [2] By 1828 South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun, the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.
Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I have said before, and will repeat, our history has many examples of this, and it is not a myth by any stretch of the imagination regardless of how much those what would ceed their constitutional rights to a Federal authority would wish them to be. The other issue is that the Courts decide on the consituttional merits of congressional legislation, and as I have shown if that law is not constitutional the states are NOT bound by Article VI or any federal law to follow them. I have also shown many examples of nullification even in it's current form. Frankly I find it very disturbing that someone would dismiss an article in the consitution such as the 10th Amendment as just a statement as if to imply that beyond that it has no authority. That Amendment is the exact Amdnment that forms the concept of limited Govt. unless that concept has also been lost on people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop being silly, guys. Nullification is a simple fairy story told by conservatives to frighten little boys and girls with state bogeymen (and women). Why do you waste your time with such nonsense?

 

[The T]

In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.

During the first two administrations, President George Washington and President John Adams appointed only Federalist Party members to administration and judiciary positions. When Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election, President Adams, a Federalist, proceeded to rapidly fill the judiciary bench with members of his own party, who would serve for life during "good behavior." In response, Jeffersonian Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created several new judgeships and circuit courts with Federalist judges, and threatened impeachment if the Supreme Court overturned the repeal statute.

FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions;


Jefferson and Madison asserted in the resolves that state legislatures had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the mandate of the Constitution. Under their compact theory of the Constitution, they argued that the grant of power to the federal government was in the nature of an authorization to act as an agent for the individual state legislatures. The resolves maintained that the individual state legislatures retained the ultimate sovereignty of the people. Therefore, state legislatures, as equal parties to the Constitution, had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the original agency directives, and they had the right to declare noncompliance. Jefferson and Madison also argued that the states had the right to be released from the compact (the Constitution) if compliance was not forthcoming, thereby suggesting that secession from the Union was legitimate.

Virginia and Kentucky Resolves

I would hardly call history a myth by any stretch of the imagination and as for your assertions on the Arizona law that has passed both the House and the Senate here, and is set to go on 2010 ballot that law will "nullify" portions of the proposed healthcare bill, especially the mandate portion. Your take on the 10th Amendment is an interesting one to be sure and falls right in line with the "living document" theorists of the constitution as well as with the Hamilton views of the consitution which were for the most part rejected until the FDR Adminstration. If your assertion on the 10th is correct then the need to elect a President though the process of state by state elections would be rendered mute and to my knowledge this has not happened as of yet. Further, on the matter of nullification when it comes to the above mentioned state on Marijuna laws and Real ID. , those states have passed laws that run in direct contradiction to Federal Law and nullify it, so yes nullification is a valid method of asserting states rights and is only a myth in the minds of those who see this nation as a stateless entity or the states as mere subjects to Federal authority.

The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. This ordinance declared, by the power of the State itself, that the federal Tariff of 1828 and the federal Tariff of 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of South Carolina. The controversial, and highly protective, Tariff of 1828 (also called the "Tariff of Abominations") was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Opposed in the South and parts of New England, the tariff’s opponents expected that the election of Jackson as President would result in the tariff being significantly reduced.[1]

The nation had suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its British competition. [2] By 1828 South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun, the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.
Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I have said before, and will repeat, our history has many examples of this, and it is not a myth by any stretch of the imagination regardless of how much those what would ceed their constitutional rights to a Federal authority would wish them to be. The other issue is that the Courts decide on the consituttional merits of congressional legislation, and as I have shown if that law is not constitutional the states are NOT bound by Article VI or any federal law to follow them. I have also shown many examples of nullification even in it's current form. Frankly I find it very disturbing that someone would dismiss an article in the consitution such as the 10th Amendment as just a statement as if to imply that beyond that it has no authority. That Amendment is the exact Amdnment that forms the concept of limited Govt. unless that concept has also been lost on people.

I concur. The FED is over-reaching it's Constitutional powers, and that's all there is to this. I look foward to several cases brought forth by many States to preserve their sovereignty within the Constitution. (And THAT of the PEOPLE themselves).

 

[Wry Catcher]

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!"

Thomas Jefferson loved the union and would condemn any asshole who supports insurrecton, secession or Nullification.
Only an ignorant asshole would advocate that this nation, concieved in liberty and dedicated to the propostion that all men are created equal, should again engage in a civil war. For that is what may occur if right wing assholes continue their hate filled rhetoric and propaganda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The T tells silly bogeyman tales all the time. Yawn.

 

[The T]

The T tells silly bogeyman tales all the time. Yawn.

YOU need a refresher course on the Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights, not to mention the Federalist Papers AND the Declaration.

You ain't foolin' anyone but yerself FAKEY. (And you CALL yerself a Republican)? YOU are a Repubican. [A Statist by any other name].

 

[FA_Q2]

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

No I did not!!!!! And I have no idea how I missed that!

navy
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.

And this is the clincher. It is not stated anywhere that the feds may do what they are trying to accomplish so, therefore, a state law would take precedence here. The federal government was established in a harmonious relationship with the states, not a controlling one. It is most defiantly not a conservative lie, it is the fundamentals that this country was founded on.

jake
A federal court will review the constitutionality of federal laws. No federal court will give standing to any state nullification law. Any such will simply be dismissed at the lowest level and then refused further reviewal at higher levels.
In other words, nullification is a null issue from the start.

And yet navy has pointed out where this has actually happened before, even in recent history. It is very possible.

The states ARE NOT EQUAL, they are SEPARATE. The powers are separate and spelled out. There is a reason for that.

 

[Joe Steel]

In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.

What's your point?

Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions;

So?

They have no force in law. They were merely the tantrums of petulant children.

I would hardly call history a myth by any stretch of the imagination and as for your assertions on the Arizona law that has passed both the House and the Senate here, and is set to go on 2010 ballot that law will "nullify" portions of the proposed healthcare bill, especially the mandate portion.

It may finally be enacted but that doesn't mean the federal courts won't declare it unconstitutional under Article VI.

 

[Navy1960]

The original thread question was "Will states enact nullification legislation?" and as I have shown many states already have , in terms of Real ID and Federal Laws concerning Marijuna, and even in the current as yet healthcare bill, states such as Arizona are set to pass nullification legislation on that bill as well. Yes. it's true is a bill is not constitutional it has NO force over the state under Article VI and likewise its true is it found to be constitutional, however if the Federal Govt. decides not to enforce such laws as is the case with Real ID then it has the same effect. The assertion that nullification is a myth is beyond the pale of logic , considering the over 200 years of history this nation has in such matters. One more thing to consider as well, case law such as with Marbury v. Madison enforces the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to review if laws passed by congress are constitutional or not, and as we are debating constitutional issues here, I don't consider the father of the constitution and it's principle author to be a petulant child. Rather, it's author would have more to say than anyone else as to it's meanings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the only answer is that the states will not enact nullification legislation because such would be thrown by the federal courts. Let's move on to reality, folks.

 

[Navy1960]

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (June 22, 2009) – Today by a vote of 18-11, the Arizona Senate passed HCR2014: The Healthcare Freedom Act, which will refer a constitutional amendment to ballot to prevent citizens from being compelled to join a government-run healthcare system. The measure will also guarantee the right to purchase private health insurance.

AZ Healthcare Freedom Act on way to Ballot : Nancy Barto - State Representative

You mean like this one? that was passed by the House and Senate?

Led by Maine in early 2007, 25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing the implement the Bush-era law which many expressed concerned about privacy, funding and more. While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.

Tenth Amendment Center |  Real ID Nullification Legislation

Or those?

Here’s the short story. Where I live in California, voters long-ago approved a law to allow medical marijuana. The feds balked – and “assured” people that federal law on this was supreme. DEA raids ensued. People were arrested and fined. People in California sued. It went to the supreme court. They lost.

What happened? Without legislation from Congress, and even in the face of a Supreme Court that ruled against them, the people of my home state basically said – “ok, you’ve got your opinion, we’ve got ours!” And today, there’s more outlets for marijuana in Los Angeles County than there are Starbucks.

In the meantime, a number of other states started passing their own medical marijuana laws, and today, the number stands at 13.

Sorry to inform you but these are very real and until the courts strike ALL of them down they will remain that way.

 

[veritas]

Nullification is not legislation. Nullification is simply disregarding a law. Nullification legislation is an oxymoron.

 

[slackjawed]

And the only answer is that the states will not enact nullification legislation because such would be thrown by the federal courts. Let's move on to reality, folks.

Since the AZ assembly already passed and placed on the ballot this legislation, if it is approved by the voters, the fact is this legislation WILL be enacted in AZ.
The interesting part will be watching what happens after that.
AZ has a history of defying the federal government, court order or not.
The issue can't and won't be settled by that legislation. It depends on how many states follow suit and join in defying the federal government.
States are not simply going to quit the union and the feds are simply not going to send in troops to enforce it. Both sides would lose if they did.
Based on past history, I believe this will be settled in the courts, probobly at the supreme court level. That's why it will be interesting, because it will be settled in a legal and civilized manner.
That's what makes our country great, the checks and balances of power settled in a legal and civilized manner.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Such laws are not "nullification" laws, folks. They merely state that citizens don't have to buy health insurance, which applies to state laws. Do any of the state laws specifically nullify federal law? If not, then you merely have laws that are a "sense" of opposition, not nullification.

Even as that drug addict Rush knows: words have meanings. Your meanings do not match what the laws say. And let you in on a secret: the Obama government will enforce the law.