Supremacy Clause and Nullification

[Thinman]

Any US citisen can challenge any law. Many will challenge, if it becomes law, the mandate in the health care bill.

And will lose when the Scotus decides its perfectly legal.

Or will win when the SCOTUS decides it's unconstitutional.

 

[slackjawed]

This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.

Wow!

What a stretch.... of course, any state can go to the Supreme Court on any law they believe they do not agree is within the bounds of the Constitution.

Fortunately, the court has never agreed with your bizarre interpretation of nullification.

Not true, here's an example:

Printz v. United States

As a resident of Arizona, I can tell you that what came out of this lawsuit (Printz vs USA)is the fact that as an Arizona resident I can go into any gun shop in the state and pass an instant background check and walk out the same day with as many guns as I can afford to pay for. I also do not have to 'register' any handguns. The sale is recorded, but there is no registration of handguns here.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So if it's not constitutional, the states not only have a right, but a duty to reject those laws?

Correct.

There was a war fought over the concept once... It was decided after the Fed won that war to ignore Constitutional limits on power, citing the supremacy clause general welfare clauses (without ever actually reading them, apparently) to give the fed carte blanche to do as it pleased. That has gotten us to where we are today.

Then we may be ready to do the same thing again. The worse this gets, the more states will want to pull out. Wow. One part civil war, one part revolution.

I'm doubtful. I don't think very many citizens would be willing to wage a war in the streets over it. I think the majority of the populace is defeated.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Who desides if the laws violate the constitution?

Who makes that determination?

Ultimately, the People, who decide whether the Constitution applies at all. SCOTUS is given authority to act in their stead

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And if the Scotus thinks the decisions are correct they dont take them up.

It is the scotus who is the final arbitor.

The final arbiter is always the People with their arms.

It's just a matter of whether it's worth killing and dying over.

 

[rightwinger]

And if the Scotus thinks the decisions are correct they dont take them up.

It is the scotus who is the final arbitor.

The final arbiter is always the People with their arms.

It's just a matter of whether it's worth killing and dying over.

Another NRA cretin..


If I don't get my way...I'm gett'n my gun!

 

[Navy1960]

Last summer the AZ general assembly passed a measure to place on the next ballot a referendum that would make it illegal for the federal government to require any citizen of AZ to take part in any federal health plan.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the voters speak, and further what will happen afterwards.

Your right, and you know it already I see, we passed recently the bill that will give us the ability to choose on our own without Govt. intervention in healthcare matters. If it does pass through the voters and given the recent atmosphere its likely it will then I'm pretty sure one or two things will happen. One is the Federal Govt. and our state will find itself locked in an epic court battle, or the Federal Govt. will simply just leave Arizona alone, which it sometimes does. They have though in the past in these cases made threats of cutting funding for highways, services etc. to enforce laws so don't surprised if that happens.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And if the Scotus thinks the decisions are correct they dont take them up.

It is the scotus who is the final arbitor.

The final arbiter is always the People with their arms.

It's just a matter of whether it's worth killing and dying over.

Another NRA cretin..


If I don't get my way...I'm gett'n my gun!

I didn't know Jefferson and Washington were in the NRA....

Is Locke heading up the chapter?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.

Wow!

What a stretch.... of course, any state can go to the Supreme Court on any law they believe they do not agree is within the bounds of the Constitution.

Fortunately, the court has never agreed with your bizarre interpretation of nullification.

Its not bizarre. The supremacy clause gives any law that is in accordance with the constitution or a treaty signed its supremacy status over all state and local laws but the minute that any law passed by the federal congress does not have any those qualifiers then it is no longer the supreme law of the land.

If your bizarre interpretation was correct then it would have said any law pass is the supreme law of the land but those that written it put certain conditions in which a federal law is supreme for a reason because they only wanted federal law to trump any local law when it was in accordance with the constitution itself.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.

gawd, you're insufferable as well as stupid.

Anger is usually the byproduct of the inability to think of something intelligent in any argument.

 

[ihopehefails]

Federal law rules absolute- in the very limited areas in which the Fed is given authority, listed elsewhere in the same document.

So if it's not constitutional, the states not only have a right, but a duty to reject those laws? I'm good with that.

Not only states but also any law giving authority such as counties, cities, townships, and etc. That means its possible for a small town of fifty residence the ability to reject federal law.

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.

If a law was unconstitutional it should not apply anyway. And that is consistent with the Supremacy clause. Your argument makes no sense, reread it and be more clear.

IF a law or Treaty is passed and is Constitutional it is the LAW of the LAND. And no State or local Government can supersede it. That is all the Supremacy clause says.

I agree but there is also another qualifier such as "in pursuence of..." which means that any federal law that wants supremacy status must be constitutional just like any law that wants supremacy status must be in accordance with a treaty signed.

I'm saying that not all laws passed by the federal government are supreme by default. They have to have certain conditions attached to them in order to get there supremacy status.

 

[ihopehefails]

Who desides if the laws violate the constitution?

Who makes that determination?

Lots of people and institutions can decide.

I suppose it makes sense (in the proper case or controversy) for the SCOTUS to resolve such an issue.

But, lower Federal Courts can do so, too (deferring to the eventual SCOTUS say on the matter if it is made).

State Courts can and do so all the damn time.

Presidents with any grasp of the nature of their obligations SHOULD do so in determining whether or not to sign or veto a bill.

In proper areas, state legislatures SHOULD look to see if the Federal Government is sticking within their limits -- and if not whether they wish to nullify Federal laws which have transgressed such limits.

And me. And you. And everyone else. It's OUR country. We have a very vested stake in the matter. And where congress passes "laws" which constitute violations of the Constitution, we should very much be clear in rebuffing their efforts.

I do not deny that there is a reasonable view of the Constitution giving the SCOTUS authority (via interpretation and employing inherent power). But I certainly do deny that such power is theirs alone.

I actually think that state courts should be able to decide what federal law means over state territories the problem is is that there is nothing in the federal constitution that says states can do that.

 

[Liability]

This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.

If a law was unconstitutional it should not apply anyway. And that is consistent with the Supremacy clause. Your argument makes no sense, reread it and be more clear.

IF a law or Treaty is passed and is Constitutional it is the LAW of the LAND. And no State or local Government can supersede it. That is all the Supremacy clause says.

I agree but there is also another qualifier such as "in pursuence of..." which means that any federal law that wants supremacy status must be constitutional just like any law that wants supremacy status must be in accordance with a treaty signed.

I'm saying that not all laws passed by the federal government are supreme by default. They have to have certain conditions attached to them in order to get there supremacy status.

A law which is UNConstitutional is no law at all -- so it can't be "supreme" over anything.

 

[Navy1960]

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification | Tenth Amendment Center

Interesting article

 

[slackjawed]

Missouri has a bill that will be introduced at the beginning of their next session as well.

 

[Navy1960]

Missouri has a bill that will be introduced at the beginning of their next session as well.

It may turn out that this will turn out to be something like Real ID in the end, it will test the will of the Administration and see how far they are willing to go to enforce this. To my knowledge very little time has been spent on the enforcement issue of this bill and other than using the IRS as the instrument to enforce mandates it would appear that it is going to be a massive nightmare to enforce this legislation.

 

[slackjawed]

I expect states will resist in court, and some may just refuse the federal funding to push that point.
It looks like we will have some degree of entertainment from it.
The Real-Id, the state soveriegnty bills in Montana and Tennessee, and this ballot reforendum all are issues pitting the states against the federal government.

 

[ihopehefails]

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

Interesting article

I plan on voting for it as well.

On a side not, for states that want this they can simply choose not to use the supremacy clause to nullify it and just embrace instant death...I mean health care reform.

 

[ihopehefails]

If a law was unconstitutional it should not apply anyway. And that is consistent with the Supremacy clause. Your argument makes no sense, reread it and be more clear.

IF a law or Treaty is passed and is Constitutional it is the LAW of the LAND. And no State or local Government can supersede it. That is all the Supremacy clause says.

I agree but there is also another qualifier such as "in pursuence of..." which means that any federal law that wants supremacy status must be constitutional just like any law that wants supremacy status must be in accordance with a treaty signed.

I'm saying that not all laws passed by the federal government are supreme by default. They have to have certain conditions attached to them in order to get there supremacy status.

A law which is UNConstitutional is no law at all -- so it can't be "supreme" over anything.

Yep. If it is not in purusuence of the constitution or in a treaty then it is not the supreme law of the land.