Federal Laws Violate the 14th amendment

[ihopehefails]

Perpetual Union.

Nullification was tested. The South ate shit.

Where does it say that in the constitution? Where is it written that states can't leave? What prohibitions are placed on the states in laws they can pass that might nullify federal laws?

Read the Federalist Papers and then the anti Federalist arguments. Then read what Hamilton and Madison had to say about what they themselves wrote...then get back to us all on what they say about your fucked up logic.

Getting back to you Virginia Resolution 1798 authored by Madison

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where does it say that in the constitution? Where is it written that states can't leave? What prohibitions are placed on the states in laws they can pass that might nullify federal laws?

Read the Federalist Papers and then the anti Federalist arguments. Then read what Hamilton and Madison had to say about what they themselves wrote...then get back to us all on what they say about your fucked up logic.

Getting back to you Virginia Resolution 1798 authored by Madison

here...

Who said the US Constitution was nothing more than a draft?

"Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our constitution, the sense of that body could never be regrded as the oracular guide in the expounding the constitution...If we were to look therefore, for the meaning of the instrument, beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it not in the general convention, which proposed, but in the state conventions, which accepted and ratified the constitution."

...And who later used an argument that relied on text and inference alone and not the history of drafters and ratifiers?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

then...

Who said in 1791...

Whatever may have been the intentions of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual and established rules of construction.

...then in 1796, we should analyze "the manner in which {the Constitution} was understood by the convention who framed it, and by the people who adopted it."

two very contrary opinions by one of the authors of The Federalist essays.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who said the US Constitution was nothing more than a draft?

"Whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our constitution, the sense of that body could never be regrded as the oracular guide in the expounding the constitution...If we were to look therefore, for the meaning of the instrument, beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it not in the general convention, which proposed, but in the state conventions, which accepted and ratified the constitution."

...And who later used an argument that relied on text and inference alone and not the history of drafters and ratifiers?

Who said in 1791...

Whatever may have been the intentions of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual and established rules of construction.

...then in 1796, we should analyze "the manner in which {the Constitution} was understood by the convention who framed it, and by the people who adopted it."

two very contrary opinions by one of the authors of The Federalist essays.

...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All he has is a "suppose" and a retarded one at that. Still waiting for an example of a Federal Law that violates the 14th Amendment.

By the way I agree that if the Federal Government passes illegal laws the States have a duty to ignore them. BUT that has not happened.

Social Security and Medicare are Unconstitutional but the States accepted them. In fact the States run them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All he has is a "suppose" and a retarded one at that. Still waiting for an example of a Federal Law that violates the 14th Amendment.

By the way I agree that if the Federal Government passes illegal laws the States have a duty to ignore them. BUT that has not happened.

Social Security and Medicare are Unconstitutional but the States accepted them. In fact the States run them.

If SS and Medicare are illegal...go to court and get a judgment saying so.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In other words, the state is constitutionally mandated to nullify all federal laws that violates its protections and the federal government has to honor that nullification.

I wonder if you know anything about judicial philosophies of the good old fashioned common sense of Justice Stewart and the Liberal Greatness of Justice Black, and where they stood on this issue?

neither was a conservative justice

 

[Avatar4321]

It is not nullifying the supremacy clause becaust that clause declares that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the federal government.

So why does it say:

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

Federal laws are the Supreme laws of the land. You can't narrow the Clause to just the Constitution when the clause specifically states otherwise.

Am I saying that it isn't a limitation on the state? Of course not. I'm saying that it prevents the state from taking no action at all in enforcing the equal protection of its laws. It was originally passed because the south wasn't taking any action in protecting the rights of blacks so it actually makes the state take action to enforce equal protection of its laws.

It was passed to give the Federal Government power to enforce equal protection on the States. Not to give the States power. You're interpretation is absurd because the States inherently have power to provide equal proection before the law with the 10th amendment. There is no point to add another amendment to give states power they already have. This amendment is designed to empower the Federal Government.

If states have the right to nullify federal laws and that is debatable then it has the right, under the 14th amendment, to take action to ensure the equal protection of its laws.

States have never had power to nullify Federal Law. The Supremacy clause prevents such actions. States do have power to challenge laws in Court on the basis that the Federal Government lacks the Constitutional authority to pass the law, but they can't nullify Federal Law.

This wouldn't be an issue if we hadn't removed the States original check on the Federal Government.

 

[Avatar4321]

All he has is a "suppose" and a retarded one at that. Still waiting for an example of a Federal Law that violates the 14th Amendment.

By the way I agree that if the Federal Government passes illegal laws the States have a duty to ignore them. BUT that has not happened.

Social Security and Medicare are Unconstitutional but the States accepted them. In fact the States run them.

If SS and Medicare are illegal...go to court and get a judgment saying so.

And who exactly would have standing to challenge them? that's the problems with the Courts. Many people lack the standing to challenge the laws. The States can only challenge the laws that affect them in some ways.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All he has is a "suppose" and a retarded one at that. Still waiting for an example of a Federal Law that violates the 14th Amendment.

By the way I agree that if the Federal Government passes illegal laws the States have a duty to ignore them. BUT that has not happened.

Social Security and Medicare are Unconstitutional but the States accepted them. In fact the States run them.

If SS and Medicare are illegal...go to court and get a judgment saying so.

And who exactly would have standing to challenge them? that's the problems with the Courts. Many people lack hte standing to challenge the laws. The States can only challenge the laws that affect them in some ways.

If any rational and sane people thought SS and Medicare were illegal.., sigh............

This is like saying the IRS is illegal. Or that the Constitution is illegal...just because of how it came about.




SS and Medicare are the law of the land. The IRS is recognized by the courts. The States ratified the US Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And who exactly would have standing to challenge them? that's the problems with the Courts. Many people lack hte[sic] standing to challenge the laws.

Demanding plaintiffs have standing is a problem?

 

[Avatar4321]

Demanding plaintiffs have standing is a problem?

Yeah, how exactly is anyone supposed to challenge a law without standing to do so?

 

[Avatar4321]

If any rational and sane people thought SS and Medicare were illegal.., sigh............

This is like saying the IRS is illegal. Or that the Constitution is illegal...just because of how it came about.




SS and Medicare are the law of the land. The IRS is recognized by the courts. The States ratified the US Constitution.

What section of the constitution authorizes SS or Medicare?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If any rational and sane people thought SS and Medicare were illegal.., sigh............

This is like saying the IRS is illegal. Or that the Constitution is illegal...just because of how it came about.




SS and Medicare are the law of the land. The IRS is recognized by the courts. The States ratified the US Constitution.

What section of the constitution authorizes SS or Medicare?

None. The IRS is legal because the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to tax and that is what the IRS does. FDA and CDC are legal because of the Interstate Commerce clause.

The Education Department at the Federal level is also Unconstitutional , the Fed has no authority in regards citizens education, that is a State and Local authority.

HUD is another illegal activity as is Fannie and Freddy.

The Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY to help citizens unless they WORK for the Federal Government. That is a State matter. The purpose of the Federal Government is as a go between for the different States not as a provider of citizen entitlements.

 

[code1211]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Nothing about "...as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person."

Perhaps you missed the word protection which is defined as shielding someone from harm or other unwanted acts. Like a missile defense system that protects us from Iranian nukes.

I'm pretty sure that this protects any individual from intrusions by the government into their actions if those actions are protected for anyone else.

Actions by one citizen against another are covered under civil law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

You already have a thread on this, what need multiple threads to feel important?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

Do you have t put forth an effort to come up with something to patently wrong and poorly thought out, or does it come naturally to you?

 

[Gadawg73]

The equal protection clause simply states that any protection a law provides for one citizen must be applied to all citizens but the keyword is protection as in protecting you from the actions another citizen may take against your person. It does not say that the law has to be applied equally to everyone (I believe their are other clauses that handle that) it just says any protection afforded by the law have to be given to everyone and not to a specific group.

This is how the courts interpret it:
"the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts both in procedure and substance of the law"

Brown v. Board of Education

ALL PERSONS

More information for the Constitutionally Challenged:

The 14th Amendment reads "No state shall deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

ANY PERSON

Your analysis is without any fact or foundation. Would not last 2 seconds in court as any argument.

 

[Toronado3800]

HUD is another illegal activity as is Fannie and Freddy.

The Federal Government has NO AUTHORITY to help citizens unless they WORK for the Federal Government. That is a State matter. The purpose of the Federal Government is as a go between for the different States not as a provider of citizen entitlements.

I imagine a good number of folks would stand up and yell "General Welfare" or something like that.

 

[Toronado3800]

If states have the right to nullify federal laws and that is debatable then it has the right, under the 14th amendment, to take action to ensure the equal protection of its laws.

I will admit Mississippi can go to court and challenge federal actions........

Is that the debate here?