Is it possible to use State Nullification for the patriot act.

[ihopehefails]

I know a lot of liberals hated that but is it possible to nullify that in their own state?

 

[JWBooth]

I'd like to see Nullification used for a host of national government edicts.

 

[slackjawed]

There are some tests ahead for the concept of state law overriding federal law within that state.
A few examples are montana and their law that says a firearm that is made and sold in montana and stays in montana is not required to conform to federal laws.
Another is the state I live in. Last summer the az state assembly passed a law that will put a reforendum on the upcoming state ballat that says the federal government can't require az state residents to pay for or to participate in federally mandated healthcare.
There are several more challenges such as this and the courts will be busy deciding them in the near future. It should be interesting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The state legislatures could pass laws making it illegal for the Patriot Act to be enforced within their borders on the basis that it's unconstitutional.

 

[slackjawed]

I should have mentioned in both examples that I gave that these states amended or are attempting to amend, their state constitutions. They are not really laws.

 

[ihopehefails]

The state legislatures could pass laws making it illegal for the Patriot Act to be enforced within their borders on the basis that it's unconstitutional.

What you are referring to is interposition which is more powerful than nullification because nullification, as far I personally believe, should only be applied to unconstitutional laws but interposition can apply to any law whether it is constitutional or not.

I personally like it more than nullification because its a more forceful way to repudiate the federal government because you can actually arrest federal agents for their efforts to enforce a law the state does not like.

Its a nasty way to fight but its legal so what is anyone going to do stop the state other than invade....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've never heard it called interposition, simply nullification.

 

[GHook93]

I know a lot of liberals hated that but is it possible to nullify that in their own state?

NO, its a federal law the the supremacy clause makes supreme the Constitution, Federal laws and treaties over State law!

 

[jillian]

anyone else notice she knows nothing about the law but keeps posting the same ignorant trash?

 

[ihopehefails]

I've never heard it called interposition, simply nullification.

Interposition, as I understand it, is the actually legal arrest of anyone trying to enforce federal law.

 

[ihopehefails]

I know a lot of liberals hated that but is it possible to nullify that in their own state?

NO, its a federal law the the supremacy clause makes supreme the Constitution, Federal laws and treaties over State law!

I believe it says that the constitution and all laws pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land.

 

[slackjawed]

There is a means for a state to challenge a law and have it decided before the supreme court. I don't know the process, or what each step is called. But in a few places it appears to be in-progress.
This challenge usually fails for the state, based on history. That said, it's still interesting to watch.
perhaps Jillian can give some more detailed answers, her field is law.

 

[ihopehefails]

There is a means for a state to challenge a law and have it decided before the supreme court. I don't know the process, or what each step is called. But in a few places it appears to be in-progress.
This challenge usually fails for the state, based on history. That said, it's still interesting to watch.
perhaps Jillian can give some more detailed answers, her field is law.

Which is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution.

 

[slackjawed]

There is a means for a state to challenge a law and have it decided before the supreme court. I don't know the process, or what each step is called. But in a few places it appears to be in-progress.
This challenge usually fails for the state, based on history. That said, it's still interesting to watch.
perhaps Jillian can give some more detailed answers, her field is law.

Which is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution.

And you suggest who to settle such cases? The supreme court is called the supreme court for a reason.

 

[ihopehefails]

There is a means for a state to challenge a law and have it decided before the supreme court. I don't know the process, or what each step is called. But in a few places it appears to be in-progress.
This challenge usually fails for the state, based on history. That said, it's still interesting to watch.
perhaps Jillian can give some more detailed answers, her field is law.

Which is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution.

And you suggest who to settle such cases? The supreme court is called the supreme court for a reason.

Well, it should be able to settle some cases involving foreign and international issues such as cases for diplomats. That is what the federal government was created for so it should be the final arbitrator in those cases but why should it be the final arbitrator if it is enforcing a law over a state when the opinion of that state is that the law is unconstitutional? Aern't the laws of that state good enough already?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've never heard it called interposition, simply nullification.

Interposition, as I understand it, is the actually legal arrest of anyone trying to enforce federal law.

If a law gets nullified in a state, and somebody tries to enforce the nullified law, would that not be illegal and worthy of arrest? What was the purpose of nullifying the law if the nullification can simply be ignored?

 

[slackjawed]

Which is why the federal government shouldn't be the final arbitrator in all cases regarding the constitution.

And you suggest who to settle such cases? The supreme court is called the supreme court for a reason.

Well, it should be able to settle some cases involving foreign and international issues such as cases for diplomats. That is what the federal government was created for so it should be the final arbitrator in those cases but why should it be the final arbitrator if it is enforcing a law over a state when the opinion of that state is that the law is unconstitutional? Aern't the laws of that state good enough already?

While I am not a lawyer, and didn't see one on tv last night either, I think we can safely assume that that kind of circular logic won't fly in a court of law.
If the states have a law that the federal government questions, the supreme court decides.
Likewise, If the federal government has a law that the states question, the supreme court decides.
Now I suggest you change your ways and become a mature responsible message board poster or, you run the risk of losing your interweb privilages.

 

[GHook93]

I know a lot of liberals hated that but is it possible to nullify that in their own state?

NO, its a federal law the the supremacy clause makes supreme the Constitution, Federal laws and treaties over State law!

I believe it says that the constitution and all laws pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land.

True, but you ask can a State law nullify the patriot act. The constitution can, but not a state law.

 

[ihopehefails]

I've never heard it called interposition, simply nullification.

Interposition, as I understand it, is the actually legal arrest of anyone trying to enforce federal law.

If a law gets nullified in a state, and somebody tries to enforce the nullified law, would that not be illegal and worthy of arrest? What was the purpose of nullifying the law if the nullification can simply be ignored?

Yes but it is possible to interpose on something that is already legal such as income tax collection. A state, under its own authority, can arrest IRS agents for the crime of tax collecting.

 

[ihopehefails]

NO, its a federal law the the supremacy clause makes supreme the Constitution, Federal laws and treaties over State law!

I believe it says that the constitution and all laws pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. Unconstitutional laws are not the supreme law of the land.

True, but you ask can a State law nullify the patriot act. The constitution can, but not a state law.

That is correct. Its the constitution that does that not state laws.