Will the states enact nullification legislation?

[slackjawed]

The Obama administration will enforce federal laws to the best of their ability. However; they will do so in a legal and civilized manner, ie; in the courts.
Or;
They will give up as they have with the RealId act and the marijuana shops because they could not enforce those laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Obama administration is merely abiding its time. It will enforce those laws, which have nothing to do with nullification.

Is this what your lives have come to? Talking silliness about nothing you can change, such as last year's election, because you cannot stand the fact the American People said the heck to you?

 

[slackjawed]

Jake you take me the wrong way. i am simply saying it will be interesting. I have not cheered for or against the legislation, I have been saying it will be interesting. I am discussing what IS happening and trying to make sense out of it. Other than pointing to what AZ and other states are doing, and remarking it was interesting, I have not taken a stand. last week posted a thread on this entitled "state nullification-what does it mean?". I waited for comments but only got a few, all of them anti-republican(which I definately am not) rather than real discussion.
If you are assigning anything more to me then you are very mistaken. I am observing what looks to me to be historic legislation of one or more states defying the federal government. This might never happen in my lifetime again. It is worth discussing, regardless of one's political stance.
The fact is, AZ has on the ballot a law that will defy the federal government at least to the point of saying that AZ residents are exempt from a federal mandate. If, and I say if, it is voted in by the voters, it will be VERY interesting to watch what comes next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, slackjawed, I apologize then for misunderstanding your intent. I don't think it is either important or historic. The states will do whatever they want, then the federal government will tell them the way it will be, is what I think. Time will tell.

 

[slackjawed]

Well, thank you Jake! Both for your conversation and the apology. I think we just have to disagree about it being historic, but then having a conversation with only those you agree with is a whole lot like talking to yourself. Therefore I applaud your opinion and defend your right to express it.

 

[HyenaKiller]

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.

Did you tell her that she was an idiot?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Well Navy, since this has not come out of reconciliation yet, I hardly see how you can judge it Unconstitutional. Not only that, it is not up to you, or the Republican party to make that decision. It is up to the Supreme Court, and, until it makes that decision, it will be the law of the land.

 

[rdean]

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

You don't win the game in the first round. If it were up to Republicans, we would have no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no Aid to Dependent Children, no civil rights, no environmental protections. And for sure we would have death panels.

Every time an insurance company denies needed surgery or drops a patient for getting sick, they are being a "death panel". Insurance companies stand between you and your doctor. The insurance company makes the decisions NOT the doctor.

And please don't make the ludicrous Republican claim that insurance companies, by law, can't drop you for getting sick. The only have to say you have a pre existing condition. Or if your son has an allergy and you get sick, because the son has a pre existing condition, they can drop the ENTIRE family- and they do. This bill will stop that.

When an insurance executive makes 70 million dollars, how many policies are "skimmed" to make that much money. Of course it's all legal. The Republicans have made sure of that. But is it "ethical".

With a bill in place, congress has something to build on. With no bill, there is nothing to build on.

Republicans are like children scissors. Cute, colorful, not too sharp.

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

Yes. You raised the "nullification" issue. However, nullification isn't a legitimate part of the legislative process so it doesn't have any codified form. You can call anything nullification and no one can say you're wrong because you're defining the terms of the debate. That doesn't mean your argument is persuasive.

 

[FA_Q2]

rdean
Every time an insurance company denies needed surgery or drops a patient for getting sick, they are being a "death panel". Insurance companies stand between you and your doctor. The insurance company makes the decisions NOT the doctor.

And not it will be the government bureaucrats that stand in the way instead. I don’t want ANYONE to stand in the way. The biggest problem is that once the bureaucrats get in between you and your doctor they will NEVER get out of the way since they are the ones who write the laws in the first place.

joe
Yes. You raised the "nullification" issue. However, nullification isn't a legitimate part of the legislative process so it doesn't have any codified form. You can call anything nullification and no one can say you're wrong because you're defining the terms of the debate. That doesn't mean your argument is persuasive.

Neither is writing unconstitutional laws. The real advantage with this route it that it goes to judicial review much faster than if you wait for someone to be hurt enough for a lawsuit. I believe it also brings more weight to the case.

 

[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.

Well Navy, since this has not come out of reconciliation yet, I hardly see how you can judge it Unconstitutional. Not only that, it is not up to you, or the Republican party to make that decision. It is up to the Supreme Court, and, until it makes that decision, it will be the law of the land.

True enough the bill has not come out conference yet, however based on the fact that not only myself but the CBO as far back as the 1990's have called into question the constitutionality of the individual mandate as well as it's lack of existance anywhere in the consitution makes it unconstitutional. Further based on previous case law, if a a law passed is unconstitutional is it NOT valid, stiull further if it is unenforceable as is the case with Real ID and Fed. Marijuna Laws it is rendered null. I don't think for one moment in my posts I have advocated that the Supreme Court is not the place in which these laws are not judged on their constitutional merits. One other thing to consider here if say for example Arizona and the several other states make their healthcare laws part of their various state constitutions it will render the individual mandate in the healthcare bill null. Article VI will not apply in real term unless the Fed. enforces it, or unless a case is brought into court to decide the matter, and if it is found constitutional only then will Article VI apply. Just by passing legislation through congress does not make it constitutional, if you do not believe me, your more than welcome to take a look at the hundreds of cases that have been struck down by the courts on laws congress passed.

Schechter v. U.S. (1935)

In the midst of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt worked with the Democratic Congress to enact several sweeping economic reform bills, known as the New Deal. In 1935, in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a central piece of this New Deal legislation. In reviewing the conviction of a poultry company for breaking the Live Poultry Code, the Court held that the code violated the Constitution's separation of powers because it was written by agents of the president with no genuine congressional direction. The Court also held that much of the code exceeded the powers of Congress because the activities it policed were beyond what Congress could constitutionally regulate.
The Supreme Court . Capitalism and Conflict . Landmark Cases . Schechter v. U.S. (1935) | PBS

 

[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.

Yes. You raised the "nullification" issue. However, nullification isn't a legitimate part of the legislative process so it doesn't have any codified form. You can call anything nullification and no one can say you're wrong because you're defining the terms of the debate. That doesn't mean your argument is persuasive.

First of all Joe, I'm not the thread author, I was responding to the original thread question and the author was the one who raised the issue.

ullification definition
nul·li·fi·ca·tion (nul′ə fi kā′s̸hən)

noun

a nullifying or being nullified
☆ in U.S. history, the refusal of a state to recognize or enforce within its territory any federal law held to be an infringement on its sovereignty

Of course nullification is a legitimate part of the legislative process, what do you think passing laws through the state house and senate that are in direct contradiction to Federal Law are? They are bascially asserting the states rights within its borders to make such laws and are asserting its sovereignty. Take a look at the Arizona Law that passed our branches of Govt., it passed both houses and directly contradicts the individual mandate in the healthcare bill. Further I have give many examples by definition of over 20 states passing such legislation. While you and I may disagree as to the legislative purpose, to deny the existance in light of the fact that these state laws do exist is to redifine a state legislative act that has been preformed for over 200 plus years in this nation. We are going to have to just disagree on this one Joe.,