The States are ABOVE the federal govt - 4 ways the constitution says so

[regent]

HAHAHA. No it doesn't. The states don't take the feds to court, they just refuse to comply. I suppose the feds could sue the state but they never do because they know the constitution is on the side of the state.

If a state does not obey a federal law, the enforcement of that law then rests on the president. The president may use force, as has been done at times such as Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion and Ike with Little Rock.

And what do you think should happen when the feds don't obey a federal law as when obozo announced in the summer of 2012 that he was gonna let millions of illegals stay here in brazen defiance of federal laws.??? You really think the feds are gonna go to war with themselves? That's where the states need to step in and assert their supremacy.

There are many cases where presidents have not enforced the law, and probably the only response is impeachment. In fact, Jackson is supposed to have said, regarding a Supreme Court decision, "Marshall made his decision, let him enforce it." In any case Jackson did not enforce the Court decision. Not that unusual.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

?
What? Yes it IS legal. You even outlined the concept in your next post:

Your own Amendment makes it the responsibility of the States to challenge Federal laws that they believe violate their own powers, IN COURT.
[snip]
Until and unless the Supreme Court rules that a power, law or Agency is NOT granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution this clause applies.

That is how a state nullifies a law. The government passes a law that the states feel is not within the federal government’s power to pass so the states pass a law that effectively nullifies that law. Then the case goes before the court for them to determine which entity has the power over that area. Otherwise, how does a state gain standing to challenge a law in court? Without a conflict, there is no challenge to be placed before the court. When the state law is effectively at odds with a federal law, that is when the courts get involved.

You support my position not speeders, he claims the States can just ignore the federal Government with no requirement to take it to Court. Further he claims the Supreme Court does not have the power to decide.

I never purported to support speeders. His ravings don’t normally deserve any real attention but I think that a lot of people take the idea of nullification and disregard that it is, in fact, supposed to be a perfectly legal road that the states can take. Just because there are those out there that seems to think nullification can ignore the courts entirely does not mean that we should allow the term to be co-opted by those of the extreme edge.

Typically, a debate on nullification goes down the road where the left starts pulling out that the federal government is somehow supreme in all matters because they are the great central power. I think that allowing the term to mean what the extreme purport essentially helps that narrative. My point here is that is untrue. The states do have legal powers and there are times when the states, at least in terms of how the constitution has set the government up and how things are supposed to run, can nullify a federal law.

I think that it is only obvious that the courts would need to get involved otherwise how would we make these determinations on where the boundaries lie. That is, essentially, the entire purpose of the courts.

 

[FA_Q2]

The STATES have vastly more power than they either recognize or are willing to even try to assert.

By the way, in the early to mid 1860's the United Sates did NOT

repeat NOT

answer any question of whether or not a State can legally withdraw from the Union.

It did purport to answer that question. True enough. But whether it is a precedent setting answer is another matter entirely. Ask yourselves the obvious question:

Is there anything even remotely akin between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barry Hussein Soetoro Obumbler?

No, they really don’t have anything in common but I don’t see how that relates to the assertion. I think it is clear that the government at that time removed the right for any state to succeed. Do you really think that there would not be a war if one tried? I am sure that a refusal to accept the federal government’s authority would lead to war. The federal government could not take that kind of challenge to its power. I think that it is rather blind to think otherwise as a FAR less powerful government with FAR less control did that very same thing under Lincoln. Now we are facing a government that views the states as mere extensions of itself and such a challenge would be met with force.

The president has already declared that he can kill American citizens anywhere on the planet without due process and detain anyone that he chooses without recognition of their rights – what makes you think the government would allow a state to walk away from the table?

The government (I assume you refer to the Federal government) did not and could not "remove" the "right" of any state to secede. (I assume you meant secede.) What the Federal government DID do was assert their claim that secession was invalid. They backed it up forcefully.

The reason my question about the difference between Lincoln and Obumbler matters is found precisely there. Lincoln was able to rely on force and was up to the task of going there. There is simply NO ******* WAY Obumbler would show such spunk. Whether Lincoln was right in his determination is not the question. The only meaningful question is: what would the Federal government DO about it THIS time if a bunch of States said, "we secede!"?

My answer is "no," I don't think there would be a war. I don't know that any of us have the stomach for a civil war to preserve the Union in 2013 and for the foreseeable future. I SERIOUSLY doubt our vaunted "leader" has anywhere NEAR that kind of moxie.

I think that is a naive stamen borne out of a dislike for the president because he is perceived to be ‘weak.’ That is nothing more than partisan rhetoric. The term means nothing when applied to a president.

That is a grave mistake. Obama is NOT weak. I think that entire narrative is rather insane. Obama is perpetuating a war across the entire face of the planet, killing people by edict all over the place and heading a new surveillance system that makes the old Kremlin green with envy. Just because he has not made calls that many of us agree with does not make the man ‘weak.’ I am not even sure what that term would mean when referring to a high office. It is not as though he is in any actual danger. Rather, he is making calls that will lead to others deaths and I think that it is crystal clear he is willing to do so considering he has already made kill lists. Obama does not have a problem with war – he has the opposite. He is far too willing to pursue war. He just calls it different names to serve a political purpose.

What makes you think that he would not pursue a war under those terms? I could see if you think that the American people might not stand for it but in all honesty, the American people would not separate either so that appeal is rather worthless.

 

[FA_Q2]

The STATES have vastly more power than they either recognize or are willing to even try to assert.

By the way, in the early to mid 1860's the United Sates did NOT

repeat NOT

answer any question of whether or not a State can legally withdraw from the Union.

It did purport to answer that question. True enough. But whether it is a precedent setting answer is another matter entirely. Ask yourselves the obvious question:

Is there anything even remotely akin between President Abraham Lincoln and President Barry Hussein Soetoro Obumbler?

No, they really don’t have anything in common but I don’t see how that relates to the assertion. I think it is clear that the government at that time removed the right for any state to succeed. Do you really think that there would not be a war if one tried? I am sure that a refusal to accept the federal government’s authority would lead to war. The federal government could not take that kind of challenge to its power. I think that it is rather blind to think otherwise as a FAR less powerful government with FAR less control did that very same thing under Lincoln. Now we are facing a government that views the states as mere extensions of itself and such a challenge would be met with force.

The president has already declared that he can kill American citizens anywhere on the planet without due process and detain anyone that he chooses without recognition of their rights – what makes you think the government would allow a state to walk away from the table?

No, he hasn’t.

With regard to the former, those targeted are afforded administrative due process by the Executive Branch, the disagreement concerns whether administrative due process is sufficient. And with regard to the latter, the president has made no such claim.

As to the topic, the states have the power and authority to do all manner of things, that’s not at issue.

The issue is when the states act in a manner offensive to the Constitution, such as attempting to deny same-sex couples equal access to marriage law, or violating the privacy rights of women by attempting to ‘ban’ abortion.

There’s a simple, straightforward way for the states to avoid being dragged into court by their residents per a civil rights violation complaint: obey the Constitution and its case law, stop enacting measures clearly un-Constitutional, and respect the inalienable rights of all your residents.

Of course not. Go back to sleep – the president will keep the bad guys away and he promises that he is not going to do anything that you would not approve of.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your forgot the most important one: Ultimate sovereignty.
That is. the states have the power to disband the federal government, with the federal government having no legal means to stop them.

They do? The constitution does not say so. Hard to see how the states could disband the federal govt. They'd have to get all 50 states to agree to it and that won't happen.

You must have forgotten to respond to my response.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
In this context, then, RetiredGySgt is correct: ‘nullification’ is neither legal nor Constitutional.

so why do you support the supreme court nullifying laws.?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
There are many cases where presidents have not enforced the law, and probably the only response is impeachment. In fact, Jackson is supposed to have said, regarding a Supreme Court decision, "Marshall made his decision, let him enforce it." In any case Jackson did not enforce the Court decision. Not that unusual.

A supreme court decision is not law and presidents have every right to ignore it. But obozo's amnesty ignores laws passed by congress. A whole different thing.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
You support my position not speeders, he claims the States can just ignore the federal Government with no requirement to take it to Court. Further he claims the Supreme Court does not have the power to decide.

So you claim the SC has constitutional authority to nullify laws.? Show us where the C gives them that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[
You support my position not speeders, he claims the States can just ignore the federal Government with no requirement to take it to Court. Further he claims the Supreme Court does not have the power to decide.

So you claim the SC has constitutional authority to nullify laws.? Show us where the C gives them that.

Already showed you, The Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction in the matter of law and judgement on ALL CASES involving the Federal Government as stated in article III paragraph 2.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

?
What? Yes it IS legal. You even outlined the concept in your next post:

That is how a state nullifies a law. The government passes a law that the states feel is not within the federal government’s power to pass so the states pass a law that effectively nullifies that law. Then the case goes before the court for them to determine which entity has the power over that area. Otherwise, how does a state gain standing to challenge a law in court? Without a conflict, there is no challenge to be placed before the court. When the state law is effectively at odds with a federal law, that is when the courts get involved.

You support my position not speeders, he claims the States can just ignore the federal Government with no requirement to take it to Court. Further he claims the Supreme Court does not have the power to decide.

I never purported to support speeders. His ravings don’t normally deserve any real attention but I think that a lot of people take the idea of nullification and disregard that it is, in fact, supposed to be a perfectly legal road that the states can take. Just because there are those out there that seems to think nullification can ignore the courts entirely does not mean that we should allow the term to be co-opted by those of the extreme edge.

Typically, a debate on nullification goes down the road where the left starts pulling out that the federal government is somehow supreme in all matters because they are the great central power. I think that allowing the term to mean what the extreme purport essentially helps that narrative. My point here is that is untrue. The states do have legal powers and there are times when the states, at least in terms of how the constitution has set the government up and how things are supposed to run, can nullify a federal law.

I think that it is only obvious that the courts would need to get involved otherwise how would we make these determinations on where the boundaries lie. That is, essentially, the entire purpose of the courts.

No, Federal laws and decisions by the Federal courts are supreme because that was the original intent of the Framers, as expressed in Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution, having nothing to do with ‘the left.’

Telling how some attempt to contrive settled and accepted Constitutional case as ‘partisan.’

Otherwise this is mere semantics, call it ‘nullification,’ call it bread-and-butter for all it matters – the proverbial bottom line is that laws passed by states and local jurisdictions found to be offensive to the Constitution by the Federal courts are consequently invalidated. Recent examples would be Proposition 8, and two Florida laws requiring drug tests of public assistance applicants and denying in state college tuition to US citizen students whose parents happened to be undocumented.

And the states may not pass laws that conflict with or usurp Federal laws, or seek to enact measures in an attempt to invalidate decisions by the Federal courts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
You support my position not speeders, he claims the States can just ignore the federal Government with no requirement to take it to Court. Further he claims the Supreme Court does not have the power to decide.

So you claim the SC has constitutional authority to nullify laws.? Show us where the C gives them that.

Already showed you, The Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction in the matter of law and judgement on ALL CASES involving the Federal Government as stated in article III paragraph 2.

Correct:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution [and] the Laws of the United States…

Judicial power is judicial review, the authority to interpret what the Constitution means, and the authority to invalidate laws offensive to the Constitution.

And, again, the supremacy of the courts, including the Supreme Court, can be found in Article. VI, Section 2:

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.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Judicial power has been CLAIMED to include so-called "judicial review." The SCOTUS took that "power" upon themselves.

A fair (reasonable) case can be made that it exists inferentially, although the Constitution itself says no such thing.

A fair and reasonable case can also be made for the proposition that "judicial review" includes the notion of nullification of "laws" that are Constitutionally invalid. But again, it is not a SCOTUS power that is actually mentioned in the Constitution. It is a matter (again) of inference.

That said, it is irrational and absurd to believe that ONLY the SCOTUS gets to make such determinations. And it is also absurd and contrary to our Constitutional principles to believe that there can be no "review" of SCOTUS determinations. They need to have checks on THEM, too.

And when you get down to it, this is all that Mr. Levin is suggesting in his new book on this topic.

Good for him. I love the fact that it has started a discussion. We need some healthy debate. We need to change things big time.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So you claim the SC has constitutional authority to nullify laws.? Show us where the C gives them that.

Already showed you, The Supreme Court has legal jurisdiction in the matter of law and judgement on ALL CASES involving the Federal Government as stated in article III paragraph 2.

Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power. The board has explained this to you a hundred times.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

No, Federal laws and decisions by the Federal courts are supreme because that was the original intent of the Framers, as expressed in Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution, having nothing to do with ‘the left.’

.

You're deliberately misquoting the Supremacy Clause. It NEVER mentions decisions by the supreme court and it says only constitutionall federal laws are above state laws. By the tenth amendment that means if a state says a federal law is unconstitutional, then it is void.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Judicial power is judicial review, the authority to interpret what the Constitution means, and the authority to invalidate laws offensive to the Constitution.

You keep saying that but the constitution does not. Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power It is an extra-legal power that the supreme court simply granted to itself.

think

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Judicial power is judicial review, the authority to interpret what the Constitution means, and the authority to invalidate laws offensive to the Constitution.

You keep saying that but the constitution does not. Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power It is an extra-legal power that the supreme court simply granted to itself.

think

So you believe that constitutionally the Supreme Court had no authority to strike down the city of Chicago's ban on handguns?

So any local or state government that wants to ban guns should be able to do so without the SCOTUS saying otherwise?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Judicial power is judicial review, the authority to interpret what the Constitution means, and the authority to invalidate laws offensive to the Constitution.

You keep saying that but the constitution does not. Nullifying laws is NOT part of judicial power It is an extra-legal power that the supreme court simply granted to itself.

think

If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if the Constitution prohibits local, state, and federal governments from passing unconstitutional laws, which the Constitution does prohibit in the Supremacy clause and in the 10th amendment,

then the implied power of the federal government is to enforce the above. The Supreme Court has the implied power to rule laws unconstitutional, and the power to strike them down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution is clear ANY DISPUTE between a State or States and the Federal Government is handled by the Supreme Court. Nullification is neither legal nor Constitutional.

?
What? Yes it IS legal. You even outlined the concept in your next post:

Your own Amendment makes it the responsibility of the States to challenge Federal laws that they believe violate their own powers, IN COURT.
[snip]
Until and unless the Supreme Court rules that a power, law or Agency is NOT granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution this clause applies.

That is how a state nullifies a law. The government passes a law that the states feel is not within the federal government’s power to pass so the states pass a law that effectively nullifies that law. Then the case goes before the court for them to determine which entity has the power over that area. Otherwise, how does a state gain standing to challenge a law in court? Without a conflict, there is no challenge to be placed before the court. When the state law is effectively at odds with a federal law, that is when the courts get involved.

What you're talking about would be best described as 'attempted nullification'. Nullification itself cannot occur.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Judicial power has been CLAIMED to include so-called "judicial review." The SCOTUS took that "power" upon themselves.

A fair (reasonable) case can be made that it exists inferentially, although the Constitution itself says no such thing.

A fair and reasonable case can also be made for the proposition that "judicial review" includes the notion of nullification of "laws" that are Constitutionally invalid. But again, it is not a SCOTUS power that is actually mentioned in the Constitution. It is a matter (again) of inference.

That said, it is irrational and absurd to believe that ONLY the SCOTUS gets to make such determinations. And it is also absurd and contrary to our Constitutional principles to believe that there can be no "review" of SCOTUS determinations. They need to have checks on THEM, too.

And when you get down to it, this is all that Mr. Levin is suggesting in his new book on this topic.

Good for him. I love the fact that it has started a discussion. We need some healthy debate. We need to change things big time.

There is a 'review' of SCOTUS decisions. It's called the amendment process.

 

[editec]

You guys argue about the law like it had some kind of inevitablity... like the laws of science really DO!.

What part of the entire canon of the law is manmade and none of it matters a whit unless there's a gun backing it up is confusing ya'll?

Glad I could be there to save ya'll some time.

the STATES will supercede the FEDS when they win A WAR that forces the FEDS to back off.

Not before that.