Nullification is a check on unconstutional federal laws

[ihopehefails]

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to but in the absence of an opposing state law that particular federal law is still enforceable simply because the mechanism to enforce it is there. This means that all federal laws are enforceable no matter if they are unconstitutional or not but nullification provides a check against unconstitutional powers. A state law that counters a federal law nullifies that federal law when that federal law is not a law that is in pursuance of the constitution or the constitution itself.

Think of state and federal min wage laws. In some states state min wage is higher than federal and state law would be supreme in that situation because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government so state law kills federal law in that situation. However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders) is inferior to federal law since the federal government has that power.

This is how nullification works. It does not have the power to nullify constitutional federal laws. It only has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws of the federal government and even then it is the state's choice to do so. The state may like those laws and choose to keep them but in those situations it is the state's choice to keep them.

 

[Samson]

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to but in the absence of an opposing state law that particular federal law is still enforceable simply because the mechanism to enforce it is there. This means that all federal laws are enforceable no matter if they are unconstitutional or not but nullification provides a check against unconstitutional powers. A state law that counters a federal law nullifies that federal law when that federal law is not a law that is in pursuance of the constitution or the constitution itself.

Think of state and federal min wage laws. In some states state min wage is higher than federal and state law would be supreme in that situation because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government so state law kills federal law in that situation. However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders) is inferior to federal law since the federal government has that power.

This is how nullification works. It does not have the power to nullify constitutional federal laws. It only has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws of the federal government and even then it is the state's choice to do so. The state may like those laws and choose to keep them but in those situations it is the state's choice to keep them.

Think of state and federal min wage laws. In some states state min wage is higher than federal and state law would be supreme in that situation because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government so state law kills federal law in that situation. However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders) is inferior to federal law since the federal government has that power.

This is how nullification works. It does not have the power to nullify constitutional federal laws. It only has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws of the federal government and even then it is the state's choice to do so. The state may like those laws and choose to keep them but in those situations it is the state's choice to keep them.

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to but in the absence of an opposing state law that particular federal law is still enforceable simply because the mechanism to enforce it is there. This means that all federal laws are enforceable no matter if they are unconstitutional or not but nullification provides a check against unconstitutional powers. A state law that counters a federal law nullifies that federal law when that federal law is not a law that is in pursuance of the constitution or the constitution itself.

 

[ihopehefails]

This post needs a re-edit. I'll redo it later.

 

[JWBooth]

Nullification is a check on unconstutional federal laws

And not used nearly often enough.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good luck, fellows. In the meantime, we will be addressing other problems.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to

Sorry but I don't see where it says that in the 10th:

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.

It says that states have the rights not delegated to Congress, not that states have whatever rights they insist they have.

... because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government...

WTF? Yes it is. Have you ever heard of the commerce clause?

However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders)...

Wrong. Interstate commerce is far broader than that.

 

[Oddball]

Nullification is a check on unconstutional federal laws

It's a check on all bad laws.

Problem is that if you know about nullification and say so, you'll be kicked out of every jury pool in America, even though it is in fact still legitimate.

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[George Costanza]

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to

Sorry but I don't see where it says that in the 10th:

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.

It says that states have the rights not delegated to Congress, not that states have whatever rights they insist they have.

Game over.

 

[Oddball]

Game not over.

The people have all the rights, up to and including the nullification of bad laws foisted upon them by congressional tyrants.

The jury = 4th branch of de jure government.

 

[George Costanza]

Game not over.

The people have all the rights, up to and including the nullification of bad laws foisted upon them by congressional tyrants.

The jury = 4th branch of de jure government.

Yes - you are correct, in theory. In actual practice, however, it rarely (and I mean rarely) works that way. I have never seen a jury vote guilty or not guilty in order to "nullify" a law they don't like, even though the facts of the case are totally contrary to their verdict. Never.

 

[Liability]

Game not over.

The people have all the rights, up to and including the nullification of bad laws foisted upon them by congressional tyrants.

The jury = 4th branch of de jure government.

Yes - you are correct, in theory. In actual practice, however, it rarely (and I mean rarely) works that way. I have never seen a jury vote guilty or not guilty in order to "nullify" a law they don't like, even though the facts of the case are totally contrary to their verdict. Never.

You must not have seen the OJ murder case.

OJ was as guilty as guilty could be. The prosecution, inept and bumbling and the judge, a bad joke on the criminal justice system, combined, couldn't counter-balance the facts. The facts were quite clear. Yet the jury nullified the law as it applied to OJ for obviously race-based reasons.

 

[Luissa]

Game not over.

The people have all the rights, up to and including the nullification of bad laws foisted upon them by congressional tyrants.

The jury = 4th branch of de jure government.

Yes - you are correct, in theory. In actual practice, however, it rarely (and I mean rarely) works that way. I have never seen a jury vote guilty or not guilty in order to "nullify" a law they don't like, even though the facts of the case are totally contrary to their verdict. Never.

You must not have seen the OJ murder case.

OJ was as guilty as guilty could be. The prosecution, inept and bumbling and the judge, a bad joke on the criminal justice system, combined, couldn't counter-balance the facts. The facts were quite clear. Yet the jury nullified the law as it applied to OJ for obviously race-based reasons.

Actually it had more to do with reasonable doubt!

 

[Fenris Wolf]

Game not over.

The people have all the rights, up to and including the nullification of bad laws foisted upon them by congressional tyrants.

The jury = 4th branch of de jure government.

Excellent link!
People don't realize how much power they have to change laws and make history. They make the assumption that the government makes the law and that is it, they accept their bondage into slavery. They don't even teach this to children in schools. It is a dirty little secret that judges and prosecutors would like to see disappear. Most citizens nowadays go kicking and fighting jury service. They see it as an inconvenience in their daily lives instead of the gift of power for which it is.
I don't know for sure if it is true, but I heard the federal government doesn't prosecute cases related to income tax in the state of Utah simply because the juries there won't convict, and has become a waste of time for them.
Here is a link that I found:
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.? The PPJ Gazette

 

[Liability]

Yes - you are correct, in theory. In actual practice, however, it rarely (and I mean rarely) works that way. I have never seen a jury vote guilty or not guilty in order to "nullify" a law they don't like, even though the facts of the case are totally contrary to their verdict. Never.

You must not have seen the OJ murder case.

OJ was as guilty as guilty could be. The prosecution, inept and bumbling and the judge, a bad joke on the criminal justice system, combined, couldn't counter-balance the facts. The facts were quite clear. Yet the jury nullified the law as it applied to OJ for obviously race-based reasons.

Actually it had more to do with reasonable doubt!

Actually, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any "reasonable" doubt.

It had everything to do with choosing to acquit a black man, regardless of the proof beyond any rational doubt at all, BECAUSE of race.

Thus, it serves as a pretty clear cut case of jury nullification. Those jurors didn't honor the law or their own oaths. They nullified the law for OJ on the basis of race, not on the basis of the evidence, logic, fairness, reason or the law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to but in the absence of an opposing state law that particular federal law is still enforceable simply because the mechanism to enforce it is there. This means that all federal laws are enforceable no matter if they are unconstitutional or not but nullification provides a check against unconstitutional powers. A state law that counters a federal law nullifies that federal law when that federal law is not a law that is in pursuance of the constitution or the constitution itself.

Think of state and federal min wage laws. In some states state min wage is higher than federal and state law would be supreme in that situation because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government so state law kills federal law in that situation. However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders) is inferior to federal law since the federal government has that power.

This is how nullification works. It does not have the power to nullify constitutional federal laws. It only has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws of the federal government and even then it is the state's choice to do so. The state may like those laws and choose to keep them but in those situations it is the state's choice to keep them.

Think of state and federal min wage laws. In some states state min wage is higher than federal and state law would be supreme in that situation because min wage laws are not one of the constitutionally delegated powers to federal government so state law kills federal law in that situation. However, a state law that attempts to regulate interstate commerce (which is trade between state borders) is inferior to federal law since the federal government has that power.

This is how nullification works. It does not have the power to nullify constitutional federal laws. It only has the power to nullify unconstitutional laws of the federal government and even then it is the state's choice to do so. The state may like those laws and choose to keep them but in those situations it is the state's choice to keep them.

The tenth amendment grants the states the ability to nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional if it chooses to but in the absence of an opposing state law that particular federal law is still enforceable simply because the mechanism to enforce it is there. This means that all federal laws are enforceable no matter if they are unconstitutional or not but nullification provides a check against unconstitutional powers. A state law that counters a federal law nullifies that federal law when that federal law is not a law that is in pursuance of the constitution or the constitution itself.

Really? State minimum wage laws are superior to federal minimum wages laws because some states have a higher minimum wage than federal law mandates? That simply isn't the case. How many states have a lower minimum wage than the federal mandate?

 

[Luissa]

You must not have seen the OJ murder case.

OJ was as guilty as guilty could be. The prosecution, inept and bumbling and the judge, a bad joke on the criminal justice system, combined, couldn't counter-balance the facts. The facts were quite clear. Yet the jury nullified the law as it applied to OJ for obviously race-based reasons.

Actually it had more to do with reasonable doubt!

Actually, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any "reasonable" doubt.

It had everything to do with choosing to acquit a black man, regardless of the proof beyond any rational doubt at all, BECAUSE of race.

Thus, it serves as a pretty clear cut case of jury nullification. Those jurors didn't honor the law or their own oaths. They nullified the law for OJ on the basis of race, not on the basis of the evidence, logic, fairness, reason or the law.

I think you are giving OJ's lawyers not enough credit.

I think the man murdered his wife and Goldman, but the prosecution dropped the ball with a little help from Fuhrman.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Actually it had more to do with reasonable doubt!

Actually, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any "reasonable" doubt.

It had everything to do with choosing to acquit a black man, regardless of the proof beyond any rational doubt at all, BECAUSE of race.

Thus, it serves as a pretty clear cut case of jury nullification. Those jurors didn't honor the law or their own oaths. They nullified the law for OJ on the basis of race, not on the basis of the evidence, logic, fairness, reason or the law.

I think you are giving OJ's lawyers not enough credit.

I think the man murdered his wife and Goldman, but the prosecution dropped the ball with a little help from Fuhrman.

I agree. The acquittal had more to do with extremely inept prosecution than with "choosing to acquit a black man." I had a Crim Pro proffesor that used Marcia Clark as an example of what he called a mark. She was an example why the government needs to spend more money on salaries for prosecutors.

 

[Luissa]

Actually, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any "reasonable" doubt.

It had everything to do with choosing to acquit a black man, regardless of the proof beyond any rational doubt at all, BECAUSE of race.

Thus, it serves as a pretty clear cut case of jury nullification. Those jurors didn't honor the law or their own oaths. They nullified the law for OJ on the basis of race, not on the basis of the evidence, logic, fairness, reason or the law.

I think you are giving OJ's lawyers not enough credit.

I think the man murdered his wife and Goldman, but the prosecution dropped the ball with a little help from Fuhrman.

I agree. The acquittal had more to do with extremely inept prosecution than with "choosing to acquit a black man." I had a Crim Pro proffesor that used Marcia Clark as an example of what he called a mark. She was an example why the government needs to spend more money on salaries for prosecutors.

How many lawyers from his team are now dead? Just wondering.

I think Marcia was in over her head, and she couldn't make up for Fuhrman's stupidity.

The Police here don't care for him much either, he stuck his nose in a serial killer case here.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I think you are giving OJ's lawyers not enough credit.

I think the man murdered his wife and Goldman, but the prosecution dropped the ball with a little help from Fuhrman.

I agree. The acquittal had more to do with extremely inept prosecution than with "choosing to acquit a black man." I had a Crim Pro proffesor that used Marcia Clark as an example of what he called a mark. She was an example why the government needs to spend more money on salaries for prosecutors.

How many lawyers from his team are now dead? Just wondering.

I think Marcia was in over her head, and she couldn't make up for Fuhrman's stupidity.

The Police here don't care for him much either, he stuck his nose in a serial killer case here.

Clark was way over her head. Fuhrman should have never been anywhere near the case to begin with, but the prosecution could have contained the fallout from his perjury. Clark could have easily won this case by following simple time lines, showing motive, and past egregious behavior by Simpson towards the victim. They should have just given the damn case to Darden.

 

[Liability]

Actually it had more to do with reasonable doubt!

Actually, it had nothing whatsoever to do with any "reasonable" doubt.

It had everything to do with choosing to acquit a black man, regardless of the proof beyond any rational doubt at all, BECAUSE of race.

Thus, it serves as a pretty clear cut case of jury nullification. Those jurors didn't honor the law or their own oaths. They nullified the law for OJ on the basis of race, not on the basis of the evidence, logic, fairness, reason or the law.

I think you are giving OJ's lawyers not enough credit.

I think the man murdered his wife and Goldman, but the prosecution dropped the ball with a little help from Fuhrman.

OJ's lawyers also did a crappy job. The FIRST major mistake was made by the DA himself. For whatever stupid "reason," he elected (in fact selected) the wrong venue. (Why NOT in Santa Monica where the crimes happened instead of in LA County where they DIDN'T happen?) This led to the jury composition which so mistrusted cops and the system and so desired to see a black man escape the clutches of that "system" that the PEOPLE were unable to obtain a fair trial.

The OJ dream team did some things well. They had to show Fuhrman for the man he was -- that is, one with a history of racist sentiments. They did that effectively. But their overall "theme" was a hodge-podge of "theories" that had nothing to do with good lawyering. They were merely catering to the rancid predisposition of the jury pool. Granted, there IS an element of good lawyering in properly assessing the jury. They did that. Marcia never even came close.

I think you give far too much credit to OJ's lawyers. The evidence was overwhelming even DESPITE the incompetence of the prosecution team. The jury walked the murderer and in doing so, they nullified the law on the basis of race.