Supremacy Clause and Nullification

[ihopehefails]

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.

Thank goodness someone stopped the real ID act but it always amazes me how people on the left fail to see all the positives about federalism when it preserves freedom much better than the constitution itself.

 

[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

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.

As will I, like I did in 2008, however like in 2008 there will be many forces at play here and the vote will likely be close once again if the same groups convince people that by voting for it they will be denied quality healthcare, which is actually interesting considering that the bill doesn't actually stop someone from getting healthcare if "they" so choose. This and other laws like it, I believe will be a big test of this current healthcare bill.

 

[007]

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.

Oh ye of little faith. I think if there was an armed march on Washington planned, you'd see people coming out of the wood work. Give it some time... wait until unemployment is at 15%, 20%, and our dollar isn't worth spit. The day is coming my friend... it's coming. People won't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Oh ye of little faith. I think if there was an armed march on Washington planned, you'd see people coming out of the wood work. Give it some time... wait until unemployment is at 15%, 20%, and our dollar isn't worth spit. The day is coming my friend... it's coming. People won't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.

Most of my family are liberals. I do not relish being on the opposite side of the fight from them. Mayhap they wake up from their error.

 

[ba1614]

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.

Oh ye of little faith. I think if there was an armed march on Washington planned, you'd see people coming out of the wood work. Give it some time... wait until unemployment is at 15%, 20%, and our dollar isn't worth spit. The day is coming my friend... it's coming. People won't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.

Most of my family are liberals. I do not relish being on the opposite side of the fight from them. Mayhap they wake up from their error.

Fear not, they'll wake up up once the impact of the bullshit being put on their shoulders starts to affect their lives personally. It's typical for flaming liberals to preach utopia as long as it's not their lifestyle being fucked with to pay for it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

Oh ye of little faith. I think if there was an armed march on Washington planned, you'd see people coming out of the wood work. Give it some time... wait until unemployment is at 15%, 20%, and our dollar isn't worth spit. The day is coming my friend... it's coming. People won't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.

We'd see a bunch of crazed Right Wingers and a few people representing the rest of America getting shot my our armed forces.They had no problem shooting hippies- 'terrorists' would be cut down quickly.

 

[Navy1960]

The self-named Bonus Expeditionary Force was an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers — 17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups, who protested in Washington, D.C., in spring and summer of 1932. Called the Bonus March by the news media, the Bonus Marchers were more popularly known as the Bonus Army. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The veterans were encouraged in their demand for immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates by retired U.S.M.C. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time.

The war veterans, many of whom had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression, sought immediate cash payment of Service Certificates granted to them eight years earlier via the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924.
Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sort of reminds of something along these lines. While the reasons were a little different the climate that fostered it were not too diffrerent. High unemployment, and heavy handed legislation led Vets. and their familes out of desperation to come to Washington to make their demands. While legislation that helps Americans is not a bad thing, so much, when it is supposes that Americans are not capable of deciding for themselves what is best for them, then it sends a message to Americans that they don't have the ability to lead this nation into the future and it shows the Govt. has little faith in it's own citizens.

 

[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.

I agree but judicial review is a little different than nullification because nullification is saying that local law is supreme to federal law which would make federal law pointless since we can only abide by one supreme law of any jurisdiction. The reasons for any laws supremacy status is either it is enforcing a law within the federal government's power or it is enforcing a treaty. When federal law is within that scope then it is supreme over any local law but when it is not then local law of any city, county, province, and state is supreme.

Judicial review is just declaring a law unconstitutional and therefore illegal for whatever reason while nullification says local law is the law that citizens in that jurisdiction must abide by therefore nullifies that federal law in that jurisdiction.

 

[Liability]

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.

I agree but judicial review is a little different than nullification because nullification is saying that local law is supreme to federal law which would make federal law pointless since we can only abide by one supreme law of any jurisdiction. The reasons for any laws supremacy status is either it is enforcing a law within the federal government's power or it is enforcing a treaty. When federal law is within that scope then it is supreme over any local law but when it is not then local law of any city, county, province, and state is supreme.

Judicial review is just declaring a law unconstitutional and therefore illegal for whatever reason while nullification says local law is the law that citizens in that jurisdiction must abide by therefore nullifies that federal law in that jurisdiction.

Judicial review is a whole lot different from nullification. Nullification is NOT saying that a local law is superior to a federal law. That's the point. It is declaring that a law passed in derogation of the Constitution is NO LAW at all, and thus a local (or State) law is perfectly valid!

 

[ihopehefails]

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

I agree but judicial review is a little different than nullification because nullification is saying that local law is supreme to federal law which would make federal law pointless since we can only abide by one supreme law of any jurisdiction. The reasons for any laws supremacy status is either it is enforcing a law within the federal government's power or it is enforcing a treaty. When federal law is within that scope then it is supreme over any local law but when it is not then local law of any city, county, province, and state is supreme.

Judicial review is just declaring a law unconstitutional and therefore illegal for whatever reason while nullification says local law is the law that citizens in that jurisdiction must abide by therefore nullifies that federal law in that jurisdiction.

Judicial review is a whole lot different from nullification. Nullification is NOT saying that a local law is superior to a federal law. That's the point. It is declaring that a law passed in derogation of the Constitution is NO LAW at all, and thus a local (or State) law is perfectly valid!

Only because the supremacy clause declares that if a law is not constitutionally valid then it is no longer the supreme law of the land and local law then has precedence over it which effectively nullifies it over its jurisdiction.

The reasons for both judicial review and nullification are based on the constitutionality of any law but the players are different. Judicial review is a private citizen declaring that the government has no right to enforce this law while nullification is a legal authority saying only we have the right to create (or uncreate) and enforce this law over our jurisdiction.

This makes nullification a competition between two internal governments about who has the right to enforce a particular law over its jurisdiction and if the jurisdiction wins then federal law is trumped (nullified) but if the federal government wins then local law is trumped (nullified).

Anyways, I am not disagreeing with you but saying that there is only a slight difference between the two so I am saying that it is green leaf and you are saying it is a dark green leaf. In either case it is still a green leaf of some kind.

Have a nice day.

 

[Liability]

I agree but judicial review is a little different than nullification because nullification is saying that local law is supreme to federal law which would make federal law pointless since we can only abide by one supreme law of any jurisdiction. The reasons for any laws supremacy status is either it is enforcing a law within the federal government's power or it is enforcing a treaty. When federal law is within that scope then it is supreme over any local law but when it is not then local law of any city, county, province, and state is supreme.

Judicial review is just declaring a law unconstitutional and therefore illegal for whatever reason while nullification says local law is the law that citizens in that jurisdiction must abide by therefore nullifies that federal law in that jurisdiction.

Judicial review is a whole lot different from nullification. Nullification is NOT saying that a local law is superior to a federal law. That's the point. It is declaring that a law passed in derogation of the Constitution is NO LAW at all, and thus a local (or State) law is perfectly valid!

Only because the supremacy clause declares that if a law is not constitutionally valid then it is no longer the supreme law of the land

No. It is not the "supremacy clause" that declares any such thing. The supremacy clause means ONLY that a law passed in pursuance of the Constitution is supreme. That is, on any given subject matter, if a State or local law is in conflict with a Federal law, the Federal law trumps the State or local law. This makes sense. But it comes with conditions. Federal subject matter is supposed to be LIMITED. If the federal government tries to legislate on a subject outside of it's proper channels, then it is not a law made in conformity with the Constitution. It is not in pursuance of the Constitution. And in that case, it is effectively no law at all. The SCOTUS claimed the power (exclusively) to make such "calls." but many of us flatly DENY that the SCOTUS has that power EXCLUSIVELY.

It makes little sense for states A,B,C, and D to enter into a contract to form a Federal government with certain limited powers if the newly created Federal government is too much of a eunuch to do its job. So, within the bounds of those limited powers, the Federal Government has to have enough juice to DO its job. But it also makes no sense for the States to carefully LIMIT the power of the Federal government if the Federal Government is free to unilaterally determine whether they are in compliance WITH those limits. (Call it a hunch, but when I'm being accused of violating a limitation imposed on me, but I'm the one who gets to "make the call," I think the odds are pretty good that I will "determine" that I have violated no limits!)

* * * *

Anyways, I am not disagreeing with you but saying that there is only a slight difference between the two so I am saying that it is green leaf and you are saying it is a dark green leaf. In either case it is still a green leaf of some kind.

Have a nice day.

In some of our basic beliefs, I agree with you that we are not actually in much disagreement. But, in some respects (matters of fine-tuning the discussion) I think we are having some disagreement. And that's perfectly fine. That's the kind of discussion I think it is well worth having. You have a great day and evening, too.

 

[ihopehefails]

Judicial review is a whole lot different from nullification. Nullification is NOT saying that a local law is superior to a federal law. That's the point. It is declaring that a law passed in derogation of the Constitution is NO LAW at all, and thus a local (or State) law is perfectly valid!

Only because the supremacy clause declares that if a law is not constitutionally valid then it is no longer the supreme law of the land

No. It is not the "supremacy clause" that declares any such thing. The supremacy clause means ONLY that a law passed in pursuance of the Constitution is supreme. That is, on any given subject matter, if a State or local law is in conflict with a Federal law, the Federal law trumps the State or local law. This makes sense. But it comes with conditions. Federal subject matter is supposed to be LIMITED. If the federal government tries to legislate on a subject outside of it's proper channels, then it is not a law made in conformity with the Constitution. It is not in pursuance of the Constitution. And in that case, it is effectively no law at all. The SCOTUS claimed the power (exclusively) to make such "calls." but many of us flatly DENY that the SCOTUS has that power EXCLUSIVELY.

It makes little sense for states A,B,C, and D to enter into a contract to form a Federal government with certain limited powers if the newly created Federal government is too much of a eunuch to do its job. So, within the bounds of those limited powers, the Federal Government has to have enough juice to DO its job. But it also makes no sense for the States to carefully LIMIT the power of the Federal government if the Federal Government is free to unilaterally determine whether they are in compliance WITH those limits. (Call it a hunch, but when I'm being accused of violating a limitation imposed on me, but I'm the one who gets to "make the call," I think the odds are pretty good that I will "determine" that I have violated no limits!)

* * * *

Anyways, I am not disagreeing with you but saying that there is only a slight difference between the two so I am saying that it is green leaf and you are saying it is a dark green leaf. In either case it is still a green leaf of some kind.

Have a nice day.

In some of our basic beliefs, I agree with you that we are not actually in much disagreement. But, in some respects (matters of fine-tuning the discussion) I think we are having some disagreement. And that's perfectly fine. That's the kind of discussion I think it is well worth having. You have a great day and evening, too.

I agree with this because it puts the federal courts in charge of what rights states get and they will probably choose in their favor over the states. Its a great flaw in the constitution that allows for this to happen but I don't think that the founders could forsee a day when the courts would be as partisan and biased in the federal government's favor as it is today.

Under the original constitution the senate was picked by state governments so it was the body that represented the state government's wishes and it then picked judges who would side with the state governments. This probably ensured that any supreme court justice had a more sympathetic view towards the states and their issues.

I kind of thought what if we changed the entire method that they are picked and have each state supreme court be the court to here federal issues and the next circuit up would be a 10 state court where each justice was picked from each state supreme court. The next higher circuit would be composed of justices who were once a part of that court and this would repeat until we reach the supreme court itself which would be composed of justices who were once sat and were picked by state supreme courts.

This ensure that no one from the federal government would have any say over who sits on the supreme court and the federal court system will be entirely composed of state supreme court justices which would make it a state government institution.