1

Who cares?  Do it anyway.  Make a judge slap it down.

Politics ain't beanbag.

2 Who cares?  Do it anyway.

Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously. The "we must burn the village to save it" mentality simply isn't compatible with that oath.

3 Are sanctuary cities, etc, a form of nullification?

4
I heard something funny the other day.
Congress started giving itself raises in the 80's. And then someone said, "Hey, you know what? There's an amendment in the original Bill of Rights tha tprevented Congress from giving itself a raise that was never ratified by the states.

So some states legislatures in 199? ratified the amendment.

If anyone knows more about this, please fill in the blanks where I messed up.

Vic?

5 The doctrine came up again in 1932 when South Carolina declared unconstitutional and unenforceable in the state a series of federal tariffs signed into law four years earlier by President John Quincy Adams . J. Q. Adams: Time Traveling President! (Might want to fix that, Gabe.) Good points all. Let's do this thing through the courts.

6 OK, for argument's sake, the supremacy clause stands supreme.  With the 17th Amendment in effect, the several states need a stronger, faster acting check on extra-constitutional laws promulagted by Congress. This commerce clause shit is getting out of hand.

7 How many legions has the Fed?




...oh, really?

Uh, never mind.

8 How many legions has the Fed?




...oh, really?

Uh, never mind.

Posted by: nickless at January 22, 2011 07:10 PM (MMC8r)

They have a new magic lazer that they can put on sharks and stuff too.

9 Are sanctuary cities, etc, a form of nullification?

 

No.

Why nullify what you can ignore with consent from the Feds?

10 Nice post, Gabe.  Now we need someone to hit the Executive branch.

11

I doubt the Federal govt will be able to ignore 30+ states nullifying this ObamaCare illegal law.  What? are they going to arrest all these citizens for not buying a product they dont want?

IRS agents don't arrest people, the local authorities do, and they will not be arresting people for not paying fines to buy some private product they don't want to buy.

Andrew Jackson went through something similar, in the end, the law was altered and greatly reduced.

12 The Supremacy Clause:
"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Doesn't the phrase in bold seem to indicate that federal laws that contravene the constitution - as Obamacare is alleged to be unconstitutional - take said laws outside the ambit of the supremacy clause?

13 How many state legislatures would pass an Article 5 resolution, with a specific focus on Obamacare right now or on the Commerce Clause, reserving is implementation to matters defined by the states versus the Feds?

14 If it's going to tie things up in courts just a bit longer, or force congress to consider that laws require some amount of willing acceptance or (threat of) force before they pass horribly unpopular ones, then I am all for it.

The illegal immigration crowd has essentially done this anyway, and has gone so far as to very successfully cast the pro-law side as the lawless mob.

If we really believe it is as deeply unconstitutional a law as we say, then we have a duty to use any sort of (legal) delaying/harassment tactic we can to keep it from going into effect.

Stop letting the other side force us to play by a set of rules they refuse to honor.

15 Man, this Constitution thing is great when it agrees with you.

16 Shouldn't 1932 be 1832 instead???

17

Goddammit Malor...I wanted to get through the day without learning anything

18 Let's face it - the federal government gets away with massive unconstitutional arrogations of power to itself, because they can - constitution be damned, they have the power to do so. Might makes right.

19

Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously.

The Constitution or the Constitution-Constitution?

I think these state legislatures are upholding the Constitution.  Besides, they're just legislators and legislators can't possibly know what the Constitution means.  We have to have our judicial overlords bring it down to us from on high.

And since they haven't ruled on nullification in this specific instance, we have to put the issue before them, burn some incense, kill a sacrifice and wait for their wise pronouncements.

20 Well, one way or another, we have to force the issue of dismantling the behemoth that has become the federal government.  Maybe nullification laws are the way to go, maybe they aren't.  Maybe it should be an Article 5 convention instead.  But we have to do something.

21 Too much thinking for a saturday night. Time for drinky.

22

Goddammit Malor...I wanted to get through the day without learning anythingC

Posted by: beedubya at January 22, 2011 07:17 PM (AnTyA)

You just missed a good opportunity to increase your stupid. Wolf Blitzer just interviewed Dupnik on CNN

23 Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?

24 File lawsuits chemjeff and let the supremes tell us once again how to live.

25

Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?

Succeed!

26

You just missed a good opportunity to increase your stupid. Wolf Blitzer just interviewed Dupnik on CNN

Posted by: robtr at January 22, 2011 07:20 PM (hVDig)

Didn't the county AG tell him to shut his trap?

27 He's like a white Rev. Wright!

Hitler is pissed that I'mdouche was canned.

28

Didn't the county AG tell him to shut his trap?

Posted by: AmishDude

Maybe he invoked nullification?

29 Guys don't worry. We all know this is bunk. These guys are just hitting O-Care with everything they have until it topples over. It will work. All of this is show. Smart move even when it will get knocked down.

30

Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?

Well, we tried the "fire on Fort Sumter" bit last time and unfortunately, that didn't turn out as well as we would have liked.

31 In the absence of any positive link to the Feds, since the 17th amendment, the States have been reduced to vassal status.  A standing Article 5 convention that annually slaps Washington around, probably wouldn't pass muster - but it might be a nice threat. 

Another idea - which would ignite a war on Capitol Hill - the House could cut the appropriation for Senate staff to zero, and stipulate that all Senate staff, personal and committee, be appointed and paid for by their respective legislatures.  Boehner could threaten to do it if Reid doesn't let key bills to the floor.

32 So sayeth Gabriel "killjoy" Malor. Good post. I wasn't aware of all the nullification talk going on.

33

 These guys are just hitting O-Care with everything they have until it topples over.

You need to rock it.  Like a Vending Machine.

34 I think the unfunded mandates issue has a bit of nullification built into it.

35 I agree with Gabe; and Oath is and Oath.  But the States can have a grand ol' time making enforcement difficult.  The only leverages that the Federal government has are to cut of State fundings (which I agree with as a great pork-busting and earmark-busting measure) or to call out the State militias. (I'll leave you to your own visuals for that one.)

36

The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states.

When the feds ignore the idea of enumerated powers--also quite explicit--seems like states shoud be free to nullify.  They can use the same rationale feds do when they ignore the limits on their power: legis ex nihilo or something.

Two wrongs do make a right here.  As long as the second wrong negates the first.

37 How exactly should the states react to such a clear abuse of federal power?

A President and Congress that represented the nation as a whole would not have forced such a law until the majority that did not want it. Nor, do they by any means have the Constitutional power to do so.

38 As a matter of far out speculation ...

I've been curious how military loyalties would play out if we pushed on to reprise of the 1860's....  The US military being deeply conservative, can anyone picture Obama holding their loyalty against a small government constitution pushing DeMint/Palin led opposition.

Without getting into the logistics of it all, anyway.

39 They can use the same rationale feds do when they ignore the limits on their power: legis ex nihilo or something.

rdbrewer, I think the phrase you are looking for is "L'État, c'est moi"

40 Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:34 PM (FrdE0)

urg, let's not even go there please

41

Well, we tried the "fire on Fort Sumter" bit last time and unfortunately, that didn't turn out as well as we would have liked.

Posted by: Count de Monet at January 22, 2011 07:26 PM (XBM1t)

Attacking the US military because you don't like the candidate just fairly elected president is rather different from refusing to go along with enforcement of an unconstitutional act.

Which actually brings up an interesting point - anyone trying to enforce Obamacare is in violation of any oath they made to uphold the Constitution.

42 What I gleaned from Gabe's post: 1) The Supreme Court has usurped way too much power. 2) Nullification only works if it is backed by the threat of armed resistance by the State against the Federal government. Even then the odds are slim. 3) There is no legal recourse to a Federal government that violates State's rights.

43

28 states are currently suing to overturn obammaocare.  10 more and a convention of state legislatures can pass a Constitutional amendment that ends obammaocare without Congress.  And there is no requirement for Congress to sanction the effort.  And they can pass a balanced budget amendment and term limits while they are at it.

 

Congress will NEVER vote to rein in it's own power.  The power hungry members of Congress are so drunk on their own quest for money, power and the perks that go with eliteism they will never vote to limit their own power.

44 The Supremacy Clause:
"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Doesn't the phrase in bold seem to indicate that federal laws that contravene the constitution - as Obamacare is alleged to be unconstitutional - take said laws outside the ambit of the supremacy clause?
Posted by: real joe at January 22, 2011 07:14 PM

Good point, but your logic indicates you are neither a lawyer nor politician.

Unfortunately, the Founders never foresaw the rise to power of a bunch of self-entitled, smug royalty who bend the Constitution to their will with impunity.

The remedies are all unpleasant. There's the Declaration of Independence Way, which would make "Poppin' Fresh's" head explode and lead to unnecessary bloodshed. The Constitution itself doesn't really address tyranny, forbids secession, and I doubt our current courts would come to any different conclusion about nullification than Gabe has.

Faugh.

45 By all means let the courts attempt to stop nullification. You seem to forget that there's the law in ink, the law that actually gets enforced, and the law We the People will tolerate.

But it's not like they have that much legitimacy left anyway.

46 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously.

And if Obama claimed the right to appoint state governors, would defying his will in this venue also violate this oath?

The Constitution vests the federal government with certain powers. There can be a fair disagreement as to exactly how far some of those powers go. There is no serious argument that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to appoint governors to the states or force citizens to buy a product.

47 There are a couple states that have laws in relation to marijuana that go something like this:  Sure, it's illegal under federal law.  But we won't investigate it.  We won't turn evidence over to federal investigators.  And we won't arrest people on these charges.

That seems a bit nullification-y to me.  I don't really have a problem with states going that route.

48 The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree. Ah, but there's the rub. The ninth and tenth amendments specifically say that if the constitution doesn't allow it to the federal government, or deny it to the states, it falls to the states. The constitution says NOTHING about the courts being the final arbiter of constitutionality. Strangely enough, that idea comes from Marbury Vs. Madison -- a Supreme Court case!

49 urg, let's not even go there please
Posted by: chemjeff

I'm not suggesting it....  It's just a fascinatingly different dynamic given the changes in the structure of the military in the intervening 150 years and the similarities in the massive divide in the opinions on the proper application of the constitution that exists among the relevant parties in the same timeframe.

Speculate with me, or not.  I just find it to be an interesting topic to consider, and I don't think there is a lack of fiction novels that at to some measure do the same.

50

Attacking the US military because you don't like the candidate just fairly elected president is rather different from refusing to go along with enforcement of an unconstitutional act.

My grandpappy's great grandpappy said the Northern boys had decided to break the contract between the States, so the Southern boys decided to pick up their marbles and form their own country.  Twarn't not much to do with Lincoln, exceptin' his election was the last straw.  Anyway, that's hows the story goes.  

51 Can a State be compelled to enforce Federal Law?  In a positive sense, not just in the normal bribery way.

52 The constitution says NOTHING about the courts being the final arbiter of constitutionality. Strangely enough, that idea comes from Marbury Vs. Madison -- a Supreme Court case!

As much as I hate about half of SC jurisprudence, I can't imagine things would be better if we all interpreted the document in our own fashion.

53 Yeah I don't understand how state-level pot decriminalization laws and municipal-level sanctuary city ordinances are okay for supremacy clause purposes but state-level refusal to implement Obamacare is not kosher.

We should just do what the potheads and the illegals did.

54 Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:40 PM

I guess the real question is: are Osama Obama, Eric Shabazz Holder, wacko liberal courts and Congress the Constitution? Or are they venal, sometimes-treasonous individuals who have violated their own oaths to uphold the Constitution but lie about it?

Individual choice, I guess. I know how I feel about it.

55

A process already exists, within the letter and spirit of the Constitution, to do away with unconstitutional laws of Congress.

The founders never envisioned the guardians becoming unbound warthogs, though.

56 My grandpappy's great grandpappy said the Northern boys had decided to break the contract between the States, so the Southern boys decided to pick up their marbles and form their own country.

Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.

57 oh yes they did.  They revolted against that very thing.  That is one reason they required natural born Americans only be eligible for Precedent.

58 The founders never envisioned the guardians becoming unbound warthogs, though.

I wonder.  I suspect the reason they never explicitly spelled out the final arbiter of the rules was they knew this would happen if they did.  I think they wanted to maintain the tension between the branches.

59 I understand the idea of nullification has a strong insurrectionist flavor, and I'm not at all one to advocate insurrection, but on the other hand I'm at a loss as to what states can or should do to stop the federal behemoth.

60 The remedies are all unpleasant. There's the Declaration of Independence Way, which would make "Poppin' Fresh's" head explode and lead to unnecessary bloodshed.

Faugh.

Posted by: MrScribbler©

Would it? There would still need to be some sort of force authorization.  Would the peaceniks on the left go in for that, or would they follow "If they don't want to be our friends, it's their loss" line of argument?

Why the assumption that the outcome would have to lead to warfare of any kind? Much like the laws in place, the continued unity of the US is only as lasting as the willingness of the bodies to go along or the ability of (the threat) of force to force compliance.

I can see a scenario where neither are present.

61 As much as I hate about half of SC jurisprudence, I can't imagine things would be better if we all interpreted the document in our own fashion.

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:43 PM (QgI7g)

How so? Liberal "constitutionality" would likely be far more restrained if elected officials faced the voters' wrath over their interpretations every 2, 4 or 6 years.

62 And the "the founders never envisioned..." arguments are baloney, it seems to me, because those are the exact same ones the left uses on us whenever they want to foist upon the nation their latest and greatest socialist scheme.  "The founders never envisioned the Internet, so the state should regulate it... to cut down on 'hate speech'...." etc.

63 Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:46 PM (bgcml)

Not in the Civil War Special Edition.

64 So, if Obama re-institutes the Alien and Sedition Acts making it illegal to criticize him, and the Supremes say "OK!", are the states supposed to just sit there and take it? The founders never intended nine government lawyers to be the final say on the Constitution. The Court is a branch of the federal government, and allowing the federal government to define its own boundaries is idiotic. As you may have noticed, IT HAS NOT WORKED. Why should we be surprised when the federal government rules that it can do what it wants to? You need to read Federalist 33 and then read Tom Woods' excellent book on nullification.

65 Chemjeff, check out my post on the Rule of Law.

66

I'm at a loss as to what states can or should do to stop the federal behemoth.

Think of all of these remedies as complaining to the ref.  You're working to overturn the next call that goes against you, not the current one.

67 All of our recourses for dealing with a federal branch that has gone out of control is to appeal to another branch or have an election. But all 3 branches are out of control. Also elections have been corrupted by massive fraud. We've also created a huge portion population that are imbeciles and rely on a unconstitutional government to survive. We have maybe an election or two to fix things otherwise we are fucked. And we have no legal recourse to unfuck ourselves.

68 57 My grandpappy's great grandpappy said the Northern boys had decided to break the contract between the States, so the Southern boys decided to pick up their marbles and form their own country.

Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:46 PM (bgcml)

Doesn't matter.  To be judged kindly you have to win.

69

If the Supremes would simply do their job and not let the other two branches run amok, there'd be no problem.

70 How so? Liberal "constitutionality" would likely be far more restrained if elected officials faced the voters' wrath over their interpretations every 2, 4 or 6 years.

How would you resolve the numerous cases where state courts (or legislators) had conflicting rulings?

71 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously. Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (XVaFd) But the government is no longer constitutional.

72 "Nullification Rises Again". Interesting title to your post.

73 Yeah, we took an oath to defend the Constitution too!

74 As much as I hate about half of SC jurisprudence, I can't imagine things would be better if we all interpreted the document in our own fashion. The constitution doesn't need interpretation. It needs to be applied. It is not being applied now. It is being willfully ignored, and I'll be damned to the deepest depths of Hell before I let Gabe or anyone else tell me we have no recourse.

75 We need 34 States to call for an Article 5 convention.  And 38 to pass any ammendments.

Just sayin'

76 You need to rock it.  Like a Vending Machine.

Now THAT my friend is a damn good analogy...what you said

77 the continued unity of the US is only as lasting as the willingness of the bodies to go along or the ability of (the threat) of force to force compliance.

I can see a scenario where neither are present.

Posted by: ef at January 22, 2011 07:48 PM

Well, I was trying to suggest that I don't advocate the violent overthrow of the government (which, in fact, I absolutely do not).

But I sometimes wonder what the official reaction would be if thousands of citizens descended on Congress and the White House and proceeded to make mass citizens' arrests. The Capitol Police would resist (not wanting to lose their generally cushy gigs) and the Secret Service would (rightly) try to prevent physical harm coming to the Mohammedan Mouthpiece.

But I believe the doctrine of citizen's arrest is valid.

78 And the "the founders never envisioned..." arguments are baloney

Indeed, there was plenty of secession talk in the early Republic. New England, in fact, considered it in the early 1800s.

Frankly, when faced with such overwhelming opposition to its regional party's policies - Democrat elected officials should temper their goals.

Representative government is not supposed to be a game, where if you can trick 52% of the population you can do whatever the hell you want until the next election.

79 75

De jure, Gabriel, you're correct. De facto, if 37 states were to pass essentially identical nullification bills, we would very quickly see Congress pass a repeal bill, and the president would sign it. The threat of a much wider rebellion against federal overreach would be too great even for an Obama to ignore.

 

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (FeYbR)

I doubt that's true.  These people have a lot of faults, but an overabundance of humility isn't one of them.

80 Would love to stay and debate further, but daughter is in HS play of Little Shop of Horrors and I feel a need to go see her perform.  Be back later.

81 Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously. The "we must burn the village to save it" mentality simply isn't compatible with that oath. Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 22, 2011 07:05 PM (XVaFd) And, at the risk of being crass, there is nothing constitutional about judicial review. It was established by Marbury Vs. Madison, and upholding, protecting, and defending the constitution is not predicated on one's support of judicial review.

82 rdbrewer, I read your post, and I agree with it.  I'm still though at a loss as to what should be done.

83 My only problem with a convention at this point is can we trust the states to do it right?

84 87 My only problem with a convention at this point is can we trust the states to do it right? Posted by: KG at January 22, 2011 07:57 PM (2k/Dg) As long as the states follow the procedure outlined in Article V, there's no way for them to get it wrong. It's the ultimate expression of "the will of the people."

85 The constitution doesn't need interpretation. It needs to be applied. It is not being applied now. It is being willfully ignored, and I'll be damned to the deepest depths of Hell before I let Gabe or anyone else tell me we have no recourse.

It's not that simple, once you delve into the details.  There are tons and tons of cases where rights are in conflict and have to be weighed against each other.  Hell, with the 14th amendment it's almost every case.

And don't tell me you can apply the commerce clause in concrete cases purely by reading the text.

86 I am too young to know of this first hand, so maybe some of the more seasoned morons can put me some knowledge: when it looked like Nixon was going to be impeached, were there states passing resolutions and demanding that he resign?  What did they do then?

87 Any attempt to drag the Civil War into this discussion is stupid. Sick and tired of being raped economically by politically-connected business interests in the North, the South declared independence; it didn't nullify anything.

88 Think of all of these remedies as complaining to the ref.


And believe me, complaining to a ref will NEVER get a call changed.  To win, we have to play according to the laws of the game.

89 Well, I didn't mean in terms of procedure, but of the resulting content. We got a lot of state seats last election, did it get enough conservatives in those seats to pull something like this off without sabotage by the Dems?

90 Maybe nullification is long-discredited, Gabe.  I respect your superior knowledge in this area.  But if the majority of the states are so dead-set against this, it's not a bad place to start.  Something has to be done, and quickly.  He just doesn't want to stop and so we the people must stop him.

91

CJ, I was just thinking the Founders never envisioned the kind of creativity that gave us such a powerful, intrusive federal government.

What will the Supremes do?  Will they stop pretending the 10th doesn't exist?  Will they do their jobs and protect and uphold the Constitution?

92 It's not that simple, once you delve into the details. There are tons and tons of cases where rights are in conflict and have to be weighed against each other. Hell, with the 14th amendment it's almost every case. And don't tell me you can apply the commerce clause in concrete cases purely by reading the text. Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:58 PM (QgI7g) Actually, you can. To "regulate" commerce means to make it regular. The commerce clause specifically speaks to resolving disputes between the states, mostly as concerns taxation. It's so we have one nation and not a confederation of fifty separate ones, you know? We've been hoodwinked by the libs for so long since we've been fooled into thinking that things are much more complex than they really are.

93 What will the Supremes do?  Will they stop pretending the 10th doesn't exist?  Will they do their jobs and protect and uphold the Constitution?

How can they, at this point?  It would become obvious they've been working the important cases backwards all along.

94 A constitutional scholar = someone who's spent more time studying bogus court cases supposedly about the constitution, than the actual text of the constitution itself.

95 We've been hoodwinked by the libs for so long since we've been fooled into thinking that things are much more complex than they really are.

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:01 PM (K1emW)

I like to call that the "social science effect."

96 It's almost like we need an amendment to reaffirm the 10th Amendment.

97
How would you resolve the numerous cases where state courts (or legislators) had conflicting rulings?

Posted by: Ace's liver at January 22, 2011 07:53 PM (QgI7g)

What *specific* issue are we discussing? The Constitution is a clear document, far more so for the states as there are precious few powers given to the federal government to begin with.

Of course the fundamental irony is that the Supreme Court does not decide Constitutionality as it stands now anyway. The Supreme Court makes a political decision on each issue that comes before it and acts as a legislature itself. True, a minority does give serious consideration to the text of the Constitution - but there has not been a majority actually doing so in my lifetime.

98 if 37 states were to pass essentially identical nullification bills, we would very quickly see Congress pass a repeal bill, and the president would sign it.

I think if there were 37 state legislatures ready to do that, the make-up of congress would probably be such that it would be able to repeal it anyway.

But I sometimes wonder what the official reaction would be if thousands of citizens descended on Congress and the White House and proceeded to make mass citizens' arrests.

I'll bet that would get messy quick, and I wouldn't want the libs to think they can do the same thing.

I'm really suggesting just the opposite.  What if a state (and it's citizens) just walked away)? No protests. No Arrests.  Just escort federal agents to the nearest state border or very politely ask them to leave.

Absent a Federal invasion, what could compel the state to rejoin the Union? And does anyone think force would really be brought to bear? Would any of us be bothered if CA did it?

I don't, but that seems to be the underlying assumption.

99 Date typo fixed, thanks. Loose shit.

100 98 A constitutional scholar = someone who's spent more time studying bogus court cases supposedly about the constitution, than the actual text of the constitution itself.

Posted by: Gryph at January 22, 2011 08:03 PM (K1emW)

Nobody else thinks this is funny, but I do: Barack Obama was a constitutional scholar in the way that Willie Sutton was a banking regulator.

101 obama has shown no respect for the Constitution. It is an impediment to him. Look how he forced Hell Care against the will of the people. He isn't bound by law, honor or precedent and we wring our hands wondering how to stop his madness. He needs a Founding Fathers style bitch slapping. All the lefty progs do.

102

Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:04 PM (lT0LC)

Laws of the Game = US Constitution.

103 Laws of the Game = US Constitution. Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:07 PM (/izg2) If the US Constitution is a rulebook, then we might as well be trying to play basketball on a Football gridiron. The whole goddam problem is that NO ONE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES ANYMORE!

104 I think this whole "nullification" thing is being taken too seriously. While it may be completely unconstitutional, it's useful in emphasizing that most Americans do not support Obamacare, especially to 9 justices who will be the ultimate arbiters of it's fate.

105 I like to cite the case of Cee-Lo Greene Vs. Golddigger in situations like this.

106 109 I think this whole "nullification" thing is being taken too seriously. While it may be completely unconstitutional, it's useful in emphasizing that most Americans do not support Obamacare, especially to 9 justices who will be the ultimate arbiters of it's fate. Posted by: Chris R at January 22, 2011 08:08 PM (QiNmA) Enlighten me. Precisely where does the constitution forbid nullification?

107 It's almost like we need an amendment to reaffirm the 10th Amendment.

No shit.  Have they snuck in a right-to-impose-healthcare Amendment that I missed?  One about Internet ID numbers?  One about giving my tax dollars to citizens of other countries who are here in violation of federal law? 

If the courts don't bend over backwards to accord the states their Constitutional rights on Obamacare, then I'm actually fine with insurrection, secession, whatever it takes.  I will not have that jackboot on my neck.  I will go down fighting.

108 We are trying to follow the rules, they don't.

109 On the Supreme Court deciding this: If framed right, pushing this to the SC could put them in a position of having to declare, in no uncertain terms, the death of limited government as a potential interpretation of the constitution.  10th amendment arguments brought by several states, alongside nuliffication and the other oft discussed principles would be much harder to dodge in their opinion than the smaller cases that have come their way.

110 Nullification was used by abolitionists in Wisconsin to resist the Fugitive Slave laws.

111 The whole goddam problem is that NO ONE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES ANYMORE!


I don't disagree with this.  But if we decide to just make shit up as we go along instead of getting back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution (yeah I'm racist), wouldn't that make us no better than the other side?

112 Oh, and were is the fucking Amendment that guarantees anyone who manages to be here a shitty, yet ridiculously expensive, public education?  Why, again, am I paying for this shit?

113

They should just deem it as passed.

114 Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)

We are making shit up? Huh.

115 I don't disagree with this. But if we decide to just make shit up as we go along instead of getting back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution (yeah I'm racist), wouldn't that make us no better than the other side? Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2) Good people can certainly disagree on where that line is crossed, but I believe that I have no legal or moral obligation to follow a law that I believe is unconstitutional. See? Simplicity works!

116 NC Ref, they are making it up.  Witness Kelo.  Witness the "war on drugs."  I could  go on, I won't bore you.  You are not stupid. 

I'll look to the Declaration of Independence for guidance about what to to about overbearing governments, once the other nonviolent methods are exhausted.

We are farther toward one man, one vote, one time than most will admit to themselves.  Executive orders?  Which article authorizes those as law? 

117 Flash - ah - he'll save ev'ry one of us
Just a man with a man's courage
He knows nothing but a man
But he can never fail
No one but the pure in heart
May find the golden grail oh oh oh oh

118 On the Supreme Court deciding this: If framed right, pushing this to the SC could put them in a position of having to declare, in no uncertain terms, the death of limited government as a potential interpretation of the constitution.

5 of the 9 do not agree that there are ultimately any limitations on the authority of the US government. The other four may or many not., who knows? Though the notion that 5 judges get to decide if the Constitution means what the Constitution says is patently absurd.

119 That is the problem, the GOP tries to play within the rules, and the left NEVER does.  You cant win against a cheating, lying adversary without beating him at his own game.  The threat of actually fighting back would have the neolibs in diapers. The game of politics is largely bluff-n-stuff, which  creates the pressure necessary to change  or repeal legislation.  Message to GOP, grow some junk or get out of the game.

120 Just call them sanctuary states.  Problem solved.  Their game, their rules.

121

I'd refer you to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Congress has a LIMITED number of enumerated powers (health care isn't one of them) and, per the 9th and 10th Amendments, all other powers are reserved to the States or the People, Article VI notwithstanding.

122 We're boned.One way or another.

123 We're boned.One way or another.

Yeah.  If its coming, let it come soon, while I still have the strength.

124 5 of the 9 do not agree that there are ultimately any limitations on the authority of the US government. The other four may or many not., who knows?

I agree.  But putting them in a position where they have to very clearly state it for everyone could be fruitful too.  I mean, how much credibility can they have with anyone as interpreters of the constitution if they have to very explicitly declare it moot?

125 I don't disagree with this. But if we decide to just make shit up as we go along instead of getting back to a strict interpretation of the Constitution (yeah I'm racist), wouldn't that make us no better than the other side?

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:11 PM (/izg2)

Why, exactly, should we be at all concerned about being "better" then the other side? Is it not better to not be pure and win? Preciously because winning - restoring the country to Constitutionality - is of such value?

126 How so?

If we don't follow established procedures to make amendments to the law, what good is the Constitution in the first place?  And that goes for enforcing existing laws as well.  The difficulty, of course, is the obvious point everyone is making...that the Democrats don't follow the law anyway, or their judges "interpret" it to mean whatever is convenient instead of according to US law.  Just because the other side cheats doesn't mean that the only way for us to win is to cheat as well.

127 Good people can certainly disagree on where that line is crossed, but I believe that I have no legal or moral obligation to follow a law that I believe is unconstitutional.

That's what Bradley Manning thought too.  You may not have a moral obligation to follow a law, but the legal obligation you ignore at your own peril.

128 Is this the same section of the constitution that hides the little-known codicil of double secret probabtion?

129 Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (/izg2)

How exactly are we cheating? You are saying things, but I don't see any evidence for them.

130 the Constitution places no restrictions on my behaviour.

Can't commit treason comes to mind.  And I would argue that the activities of the Obama Administration to prevent the enforcement of immigration laws is treasonous.

131 How exactly are we cheating?

We're not.  I didn't mean to imply that we are.  But I get the impression that a couple of posts came close to advocating that since we should "the other side is doing it already."  If I'm wrong, my bad.

132 Emanations, penumbra, gnarfle....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

133 Nullification begins tomorrow at 3 when Rodgers will be nullifried by da BEARS  defense thus loosing by no less than 6

Enjoy those cheese curds

134 States, in the rejection of federal health care mandates, are adhering to the Constitution.

Says you.  And the lefties say sanctuary cities are adhering to the constitution.  And that twice weekly bubble baths for Gitmo detainees are specified in the constitution.

You don't want to go down that road.  Because everyone else will too.

135 Is it not better to not be pure and win? Preciously because winning - restoring the country to Constitutionality - is of such value?

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 08:18 PM (bgcml)

So we should violate the letter AND spirit of the Constitution to restore the Constitution?  I don't get that argument.

136 "Nullification is a long-discredited, but persistent idea that keeps popping up from disgruntled state legislatures."

If we had even ONE Senator from each state appointed by the state legislatures, such laws probably wouldn't pass in the first place.

137 The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Nullify away, and let the chips fall where they may.

138 One good thing abt. all this varied effort to kill Hell care, is it will keep the focus on it. This will force obama and his skells to keep defending it, reminding us how good it tasted when they rammed it down our throats. That is not going to work. We are seeing the negative effects of it now. Just as we predicted.

139 I'm sick of this debate. The constitution does not require interpretation, merely application, the Left's twisting of it notwithstanding. This is an open question for everyone: where is your personal threshold that, once crossed by the tyrants in DC, you'll be willing to actually fight for your rights. And by that I mean everything up to and including open insurrection.

140 Who says Marbury is constitutional? SCOTUS? Why do they get to decide? Oh yeah, because of Marbury. It's a "because I said so argument", which isn't all that persuasive.

141 Says you.  And the lefties say sanctuary cities are adhering to the constitution.  And that twice weekly bubble baths for Gitmo detainees are specified in the constitution.

False moral equivalencies are just that.

142 and I'll be damned to the deepest depths of Hell before I let Gabe or anyone else tell me we have no recourse. Posted by: Gryph

Um, did you read his post? He didn't write that conservatives have no recourse.

143
147

I crossed that line back when they shoved the TARP through.  No joke.

144 Thresher - absolutely right.  And I'm not sure exactly where the big government tyrants will cross my personal line, but its a lot closer now then I ever would have believed.

145

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

This begs the question of whether nullification is wrong when it follows the other wrong.  Here's the second "wrong" is not a wrong.

Otherwise, you can pretty much abandon, say, the idea of overturning bad precedent.

146 Will do, Dread.

147 Um, did you read his post? He didn't write that conservatives have no recourse.

The gist of Gabe's post is that there comes a point at which we must concede defeat and stop fighting.

Sorry, but no.  ObamaCare has to be overturned no matter what it takes.

148

So we should violate the letter AND spirit of the Constitution to restore the Constitution?  I don't get that argument.

Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:26 PM (/izg2)

What exactly has anyone in this thread proposed that would violate the Constitution?

On the other hand, no citizen or government official should feel bound to enforce a unconstitutional law, "cheating" or not.

149 Thank God that the Founders offered the monarchy to George Washington and not John Marshall. That power hunger megalomaniac would jumped at the chance to be an authoritarian.

150 The Constitution means what people think it means, period.  And due to idiots like you, it means bupkis.  Quoting Jackson?  You got to be kidding.  He thought it meant whatever HE wanted it to mean.  He's the guy who told the Supremes to shove it.  And this is your authority?

But it doesn't matter.  It doesn't mean what you think it does and it doesn't mean what I think it does.  It means what 50%+1 of the morons in this country think it means.  Even worse, it means what 5 of 9 assholes on the Court say it means.  Nothing matters.  At least, facts and logic don't matter.

151 This is an open question for everyone: where is your personal threshold that, once crossed by the tyrants in DC, you'll be willing to actually fight for your rights. And by that I mean everything up to and including open insurrection.

Posted by: Thresher at January 22, 2011 08:29 PM (DG56/)

I notice that none of the opponents of this idea touched my example about of how they would respond if Obama claimed the right to appoint State governors. Is it different in scope then Obamacare? Sure. Is it different in kind? No.

152 Oh yeah, because of Marbury. It's a "because I said so argument", which isn't all that persuasive. Posted by: gm

No, it's more a question that if the courts aren't supposed to play a role then why the fuck did the founders include it in the fucking Constitution?  For shits and giggles? To determine the legality of designated hitters? To settle NFL free-agency?

Oh, oh, I know, to kick fan-favorites off of American Idol. That's it.

153 Gabe, Have you bothered reading Thomas woods' book on nullification? In light of the actual evidence your argument simply falls flat. You ultimately claim that the rule of law is the same as the rule of men. Force and threats of force merely show how drunk and corrupt the federal government under Jackson and Lincoln were. The supreme court, a branch of the federal government, decides that only the federal government can judge thE federal government, absent any actual constitutional support to that effect. It's not just wrong, it's patently absurd on it's face. We both know that, had such an understanding been held by any of the founders or original ratifiers the constitution never would have been ratified. Please take the time to research the subject, by consulting woods' book, instead of repeating the anti-reason might-makes-right rhetoric you were spoon fed by liberal law professors. The constitution makes no sense without nullification, and makes no sense when the federal government is invested with unlimited powers.

154 The gist of Gabe's post is that there comes a point at which we must concede defeat and stop fighting.
Posted by: The War

You know, you really should get over the fact that Gabe ran over your dog. I mean come on, it was just a dog, right?

155 >>>No, it's more a question that if the courts aren't supposed to play a role then why the fuck did the founders include it in the fucking Constitution? Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:37 PM (h2t8r) Federal courts only decide constitutional questions? SCOTUS is the only court provided for by the constitution.

156 The American Revolution wasn't Constitutional.

No, but Jefferson set forth the reasons for the Revolution in the Declaration of Independance...after which the Constitution was written.

And no specific violations of the Constitution were advocated...I'm sure...but the gist of some posts seemed TO ME to argue that we need to fight the Democrats on their level...which is cheating and twisting the Constitution to their needs instead of reading the words as they are written.  If I was mistaken...again...my bad.

157 No, it's more a question that if the courts aren't supposed to play a role then why the fuck did the founders include it in the fucking Constitution?

The assumption of the extent of SCOTUS's power has always been exactly that -- an assumption -- from John Marshall right down to the present.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there language granting the Supreme Court absolute final authority on the constitutionality of anything.

That being the case, state nullification of unconstitutional laws is no less legitimate than a Supreme Court that takes it upon itself to unilaterally overturn them.

158
The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states.

Get with the program, Gabe. The Constitution is an outdated piece of shit written by old, dead, white men.

That means we can do whatever we want to nowadays.

Wheeee!!!

159 The Constitution specifically limits what the government is allowed to call treason & that's about the extent of it. Look it up. Posted by: The Dread 80286 opcode LMSW at January 22, 2011 08:32 PM

Once again, it's in the way you interpret the words. Many of us apply the Constitutional standard and would, if on a jury, find Osama Obama and some members of Congress as guilty of treason as Bradley Manning.

In the same vein, people say the Mohammedan Mouthpiece shouldn't be impeached. Define "high crimes and misdemeanors." For some, the antics of his campaign, perjury and unconstitutional usurpation of power are enough. Others would give the guy a pass no matter what.

160

Nullification = a polite way to show one's fist, poised to strike at a given face, while asking "is that your final answer?"

161 "I notice that none of the opponents of this idea touched my example about of how they would respond if Obama claimed the right to appoint State governors. Is it different in scope then Obamacare? Sure. Is it different in kind? No." Fine, I'm game. IF the SCOTUS finds, say, the personsl mandate unconstitutional, and Obama enforces it anyway, impeach, try, and depose his ass. If he refuses to leave office and attempts to hold on to power after being legally removed by Congress, all bets are off and I'd join the barricades. We're nowhere near that point. And nullification is a bad, bad idea. Isn't that what "sanctuary cities" are doing? What if liberal states decide to nullify other laws, laws we like? No, nullification is s gimmick. We need to do the hard work if winning the Senate and Presidency, and then have the guts to kill Obamacare the right way.

162

I think the landmark decision of Roe v Marbury renders this specious argument mute.

163 Nuttification?  Does that mean what I think it means??

164 Define "high crimes and misdemeanors."


Assisting in the invasion of our nation by foreign nationals by preventing law enforcement from doing their job?

165 Any attempt to drag the Civil War into this discussion is stupid. Sick and tired of being raped economically beaten in a fair election by politically-connected business interests in the North the Republican Party and opponents of the barbaric institution of slavery, the South declared independence decided to orchestrate the murder of hundreds of thousands of loyal American soldiers rather than respect basic human dignity and the rule of law, aided and abetted by the Democratic Party, natch; it didn't nullify anything.

Posted by: Citizen Snips at January 22, 2011 07:59 PM (Omwhl)

FIFY

166 Federal courts only decide constitutional questions? SCOTUS is the only court provided for by the constitution. Posted by: gm

I see you avoided the question. I'll restate it in case it wasn't clear.

If the Founders did not see a need for SCOTUS to provide review, then why did was it the only one provided for in the USC?

167 Assisting in the invasion of our nation by foreign nationals by preventing law enforcement from doing their job?
Posted by: NC Ref at January 22, 2011 08:49 PM

That's actually a double-duty crime: impeachable and treasonous.

168 If the Founders did not see a need for SCOTUS to provide review, then why did was it the only one provided for in the USC? Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:50 PM (h2t8r) It was provided for in the USC, but the constitution says nothing about its role or the form of its implementation. Judicial review stems IN ITS ENTIRETY from Marbury Vs. Madison. There is no other constitutional authority for it.

169 No, it's more a question that if the courts aren't supposed to play a role then why the fuck did the founders include it in the fucking Constitution?

The powers of the judicial branch are defined in the Constitution as are the executive and legislative. If the founders didn't intend the executive and legislative branches to "have a role" why did they include them?

170 No, nullification is s gimmick.

Tell that to the states.  This is not some ideological game to them; this is survival.  That's why these states are proposing nullification.  ObamaCare's unfunded mandates will send every state in the Union off a fiscal cliff and they have the right to protect themselves, through a big fat "fuck you, no" to the federal government if necessary.

And, as I said, let the chips fall where they may.

171 We have tried to work through the system and we will continue to try.The anger is building though,the executive contiues to do whatever it wants.Personally I think the violence will start from the left and drag us all in.

172 One thing about the role of the SCOTUS - correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but doesn't the constitution give the Congress the perogative ti rule certain areas outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? For example, could not Congress theoretically remove the personal mandate - or abortion, for that matter - from judicial review?

173
The assumption of the extent of SCOTUS's power has always been exactly that -- an assumption -- from John Marshall right down to the present.

And bitterly opposed by, among others, Thomas Jefferson.

174 If the Founders did not see a need for SCOTUS to provide review, then why did was it the only one provided for in the USC?

If the states are indeed sovereign, then why is nullification at the state level of absurdly unconstitutional laws that infringe upon the states' 10th Amendment rights unconstitutional?

175 Goldbricker,

Your weak arguments also fall flat.  Can we deal with the text, instead of what you want the text to say?

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Plus a bit of extra stuff in the 11th Amendment seems to resolve this matter rather clearly.

Your entire position depends on the logical fallacy of "presuming what you seek to prove."  Your conclusion is the same as your starting point.

176 @44:"The Constitution itself... forbids secession." Oh? Where? It's a subject the Con is silent on. You could probably torture the 14th Amendment in that direction, with a claim that a seceeded state could not remove US citizenship from its citizens. But that doesn't forbid secession...it just means that a state has to tell its citizens to renounce their US citizenship, or get out. Given the flurry of amendments after the Civil War, it is odd that none explicitly address secession. I wonder if the Soviet constitution had an anti-secession plank.

177 Undead States,

How dare you not concede the logical fallacy of the Gabe and Gold!  How dare you not accept their proposal that we all presume in advance the very thing they seek to prove!

178 I'm not sorry. I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic ...
You ah, missed a few words there. And I don't give a rats ass how you take your oaths.

I take mine "without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion".

How long's it been? Are you senile? You know they say memory is the first to go.

Here's an idea to wrap your mind around:
Who says an amendment to the constitution HAS to be proposed in the US Congress BEFORE it's ratified by the several states?

What if, (hear me out) what if thirty some states ratified the same change to the constitution?

How do think the Soros-Saudi funded ObowMao machine would react?

179 So, let's say a President declares himself Dictator, the House and Senate say "Cool with us" and the Supremes say "'bout time", do we just sit there and say "Oh well, the Supremes said it was ok"? The Constitution has two major flaws: it relies on human beings and it can't prevent its own corrupting influence. It can't stop the power it has from being corrupted. In fact the balance of power between the branches, something that is supposed to protect order and freedom, is the very thing that leads to the loss of both. The Constitution is hoisting itself on its own petard. It is a natural consequence of its design.

180 The powers of the judicial branch are defined in the Constitution as are the executive and legislative. If the founders didn't intend the executive and legislative branches to "have a role" why did they include them? Posted by: 18-1

Checks and balances, obviously. As you implied, the judiciary is on the same level textually as the Legislative and the Executive; all are Article level constructions.

That is not to say that the Judiciary is supreme, rather it is another of the interlocking constraints on law.

Look at it this way; the Executive has veto power over the Legislative, and, yet the Executive is not supreme. Likewise SCOTUS has review but cannot create legislation whole cloth.

181
For example, could not Congress theoretically remove the personal mandate - or abortion, for that matter - from judicial review?

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 08:54 PM (tJjm/)

No. That would be unconstitutional.

It's a complicated matter but if you closely read Wade v. Madison decision you'll understand why.

182

If the SC does not overturn Obamacare, then the country as we know it is lost.

At that point, I say we(Conservative flyover country, the Atlantic Coast, South, Midwest, Mountain West, Alaska) get together with the Western Provinces of Canada and reform under the old Constitution and D of I with changes that caused the statist drift in the first place.  Let the Liberals have Maryland on up through the Eastern Provinces and California and Hawaii (this way we can still be flyover country to them).  Everybody that is a legal citizen of either the United States or Canada gets to choose which country they want to live in and have house for house swaps for switchers.

No Bloodshed, but the Progressives would cry because they would have nobody to control against their will.

My guess is that over 60% of the population would join the conservative country.

Hypothetically, of course.

183 If the states are indeed sovereign, then why is nullification at the state level of absurdly unconstitutional laws that infringe upon the states' 10th Amendment rights unconstitutional?
Posted by: The War

Way to avoid the question yet again.

184 Personally I think the violence will start from the left and drag us all in. Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 08:54 PM

Probably so. My guess is that it will start with the coming -- and, thanks to the current Congress and lefties who encourage the Osama Obama regime to keep on spending, unavoidable -- financial meltdown. Take away the "Constitutional right" to free health care, free food, free housing and, for all I know, free cars for the protected classes, and it's SHTF time.

If the conservatives were going to man the barricades, they would have done it months ago. Instead, they keep arguing about what the Constitution means while it's being taken away from them.

My personal choice is secession. I hope I'm in one of the first states to go (CA won't as it needs to suck on that federal teat), but if not I'll relocate when I hear enough people in any state start saying "enough!"

185 If the states are indeed sovereign, then why is nullification at the state level of absurdly unconstitutional laws that infringe upon the states' 10th Amendment rights unconstitutional? IF there was no SCOTUS judicial review, you would have a point. Also, let's remember that 2/3rds of the states can always call for a second constitutional convention: if clealy unconstitutional law was upheld by the SCOTUS, the states acting together would have that ultimate remedy.

186 The assumption of the extent of SCOTUS's power has always been exactly that -- an assumption -- from John Marshall right down to the present.

The SC can affirm or overturn lower court decisions, or take original jurisdiction in specified cases.  If the Court states that a law is unconstitutional, it's saying that it will overturn all convictions based on that law that come before it.  Normally, that ends the deal.  Who is going to keep bringing cases that will be overturned?

But that's it.  The Justices are not divine oracles, nor can they ac tualize their ruling.  If the political branches agree that the court is in error, they can just ignore its rulings, and they have in cases past.

187

John Roberts, you're welcome to chime in with anything you think might be helpful. 

Wouldn't it be nice if that ignoramus Sotomayor showed up?  And I'm not doubting her mental horsepower just because I disagree with her.  Even Laurence Tribe tried to nix that nomination.

188

 ObamaCare's unfunded mandates will send every state in the Union off a fiscal cliff and they have the right to protect themselves

That and more-- it'll help send the entire country off that cliff and states are nervous that just removing the 'individual mandate' (even if found unconstitutional) won't go far enough to save us.  Of couse, said individual mandate seems the only part we're even allowed to appeal, while that one aspect may be the least of our worries.

 

189 195 I'm still a patriot.The glee that would give our enemies sticks in my craw.I still hope we can avoid the worst case.It will be bad in any case.

190 Well, perhaps history would have judged them better had they not shot first.

Posted by: 18-1 at January 22, 2011 07:46 PM (bgcml)

You would think getting hanged would at least get me remembered, oh well ...

191 My personal choice is secession. I hope I'm in one of the first states to go (CA won't as it needs to suck on that federal teat), but if not I'll relocate when I hear enough people in any state start saying "enough!"

Yup.

192 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."
Posted by: Absalom

Thanks for doing my homework.

That bold part must mean something. Hmm, I wonder what?

"Your entire position depends on the logical fallacy of "presuming what you seek to prove."  Your conclusion is the same as your starting point."

Nope, it was a question that more than a few us can't seem to answer. SCOTUS has the implicit power of review. We really need to tighten up our game if we're stuck on that part.

193 Way to avoid the question yet again.

You miss the point.  I was posing another question for which, as with yours, there is no definitive answer using constitutional language.

In other words, nullification is just as valid as judicial review.

194 Gold,

To affirm your argument that SCOTUS can not create legislation out of thin air it seems you are relying on Marbury... a situation in which SCOTUS created both legislation and Constitutional language out of thin air.

How is this clear and logical thinking?

A simple reading of the text in question shows that SCOTUS is in all ways subject to the legislative branch, so much so that the legislative branch can expressly and clearly restrict what SCOTUS may or may not take up.

The branch that is subject to the power of the legislature is at the same time able to override that same legislature?  A=A', clear as day, I see it now.  Aren't these the basic logical contradictions that an L1 is supposed to learn to avoid?

195 196 The problem being that some states are owned by the Feds and will never challenge them.How many would?Not enough I bet.

196 Yeah, well I am quite explicit too.  Try openly carrying a pistol in Times Square.

197 >>> If the Founders did not see a need for SCOTUS to provide review, then why did was it the only one provided for in the USC? Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 08:50 PM (h2t8r) Clearly a federal court would be necessary to address federal law. Further, Marbury was a controversial decision when many of the Founders were still around and still needed to be decided (i.e., illustrating that it wasn't already assumed). And I'm not saying that SCOTUS should not decide constitutional issues. I just wish that it had been given the authority in a more definitive way (e.g., by constitutional amendment). That way, their powers could have been defined and limited; i.e., precluding them from having the authority to just make shit up based on their policy preferences (like they do now).

198 207 Yeah,theres that too.We live in a police state andd Americans are,by and large,okay with that.

199 Fine, I'm game.

IF the SCOTUS finds, say, the personsl mandate unconstitutional, and Obama enforces it anyway, impeach, try, and depose his ass.

That's not exactly my point.Whether it is the Executive, the Judicial branch, or all three branches acting against the Constitution, how do "we the people" respond? So let me draw a little clearer...

Suppose SCOTUS rules the mandate constitutional via the Commerce Clause AND that there is in fact a right to healthcare in the Constitution. Obamacare, or worse, is the law now and for as long as there are 5 leftist judges on the court. What exactly should the electorate of Virgina or Texas do? Wait 20 years and hope they can elect the correct Presidents and Senators to get the right SC justices to overturn the decision?

Are we supposed to teach our children that they live under the Constitution when in fact they do not? And to faithfully execute unconstitutional laws?

We're nowhere near that point. And nullification is a bad, bad idea. Isn't that what "sanctuary cities" are doing? What if liberal states decide to nullify other laws, laws we like?

Again, false equivalency. Ignoring an unconstitutional law is not the same as ignoring a constitutional one. Further, as your argument notes, the left already ignores laws it does not like, irrespective of constitutionality.

And as a final note, if we truly live in a country where an honest, truly federal system cannot house our two political ideologies, then why are we continuing to try and force them to stay together?

200

In other words, South Carolina won in the 1830s. Wisconsin, etc. won in the 1850s, since the law went widely unenforced.

 

201 IF there was no SCOTUS judicial review, you would have a point.

Why?  What empowers SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality?  The Constitution itself sure doesn't.

202

If the SC does not overturn Obamacare, then the country as we know it is lost.

At that point, I say we(Conservative flyover country, the Atlantic Coast, South, Midwest, Mountain West, Alaska) get together with the Western Provinces of Canada and reform under the old Constitution and D of I with changes that caused the statist drift in the first place.  Let the Liberals have Maryland on up through the Eastern Provinces and California and Hawaii (this way we can still be flyover country to them).  Everybody that is a legal citizen of either the United States or Canada gets to choose which country they want to live in and have house for house swaps for switchers.

No Bloodshed, but the Progressives would cry because they would have nobody to control against their will.

My guess is that over 60% of the population would join the conservative country

----

If only...  I would leave purple florida and flee to Montana.  Whether my body ever recovered is one question, but at least, my mind would have peace, and my kids would have freedom...

203 Gold,

Finally you get it.

There is no such thing as the implcit power of review, only a naked power grab.

You can rejoice over emanations from penumbras all you wish.  The text itself is clear in this matter, and both the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers show quite clearly that none of the original ratifiers or the framers believed an all powerful federal government was being erected which was only answerable to itself and its own branches.  That is precisely the sort of thing that sparked a little conflict with the British, circa 1776.

204 Bad laws and bad SCOTUS decisions happen a lot faster than new amendments get ratified. And guess what, millions of people in several States like those bad laws and bad SCOTUS decisions. It is foolish to count on the amendment process.

205 You miss the point.  I was posing another question for which, as with yours, there is no definitive answer using constitutional language.

In other words, nullification is just as valid as judicial review.
Posted by: The War

So Article III was written, and passed, in order to give the states nullification?  Sorry, I don't follow.

206 @187: Lincoln's legal basis for prosecuting the Civil War was that it is impossible to leave the Union, since the constitution makes no allowance for such a thing. Therefore, legally the Southern states never actually left the Union, but rather fell into a state of lawlessness. Lincoln acted to restore law and order in the South. That was the theory, anyway. When I asked my professor why, then, did the Southern states have to apply for readmission to the Union, if they never really left, he was stumped.

207 195 I'm still a patriot.The glee that would give our enemies sticks in my craw.I still hope we can avoid the worst case.It will be bad in any case. Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 09:04 PM

So am I. The question if/when this happens will be: which nation is the real United States? The breakaway lands that are ruled by the original Constitution, or the People's Republic of America, ruled by would-be totalitarians and vengeance-seeking criminals?

208

My secret plan is to get the USSC to start defending the Constitution--to get the other justices to realize this is our sole purpose and that to do anything less would be an abdication of our authority.  It's not our job to sit back and let someone's notion of shifting sentiment and/or Congress re-make the country.  It's now or never.  If never, then the USSC will cease to be a viable branch.  I can't believe that the liberal judges believe so wholeheartedly in power centralized in Congress that they would completely forget about the purpose of the Constitution.

209 And so we devolve, once "implicit" powers are cited without ceasing, into the original problem... the liberal position (gold and gabe's) is one of might makes right.   Which is entirely contrary to the Constitution itself, based around rule of law.

Thus the very document merely becomes a war of "my implicit reading" vs "your implicit reading", and once the debate shifts to which implicit reading is correct, those that uphold the correct view (the original text means what it says and says what it means) have been presumed already to be incorrect even when that is what the usurpers sought to improve.

The number of logical fallacies that  must be compounded in order to make the usurper position viable is astounding.

I for one refuse to accept this logical positivism/relativism.

210 Here's an idea to wrap your mind around:
Who says an amendment to the constitution HAS to be proposed in the US Congress BEFORE it's ratified by the several states?

What if, (hear me out) what if thirty some states ratified the same change to the constitution?

Huh.  That is an interesting idea.  If you read Article 5 carefully, it doesn't strictly say that Congress must act before the states.

211

If the SC does not overturn Obamacare, then the country as we know it is lost.

At that point, I say we(Conservative flyover country, the Atlantic Coast, South, Midwest, Mountain West, Alaska) get together with the Western Provinces of Canada and reform under the old Constitution and D of I with changes that caused the statist drift in the first place.  Let the Liberals have Maryland on up through the Eastern Provinces and California and Hawaii (this way we can still be flyover country to them).  Everybody that is a legal citizen of either the United States or Canada gets to choose which country they want to live in and have house for house swaps for switchers.

No Bloodshed, but the Progressives would cry because they would have nobody to control against their will.

Posted by: NaturalCitizen at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (HqFeB)

I sure hope all the neo-secessionists this thread seems to be drawing out are just joking. If there is one thing the Civil War settled beyond all doubt, it's that states don't get to just leave. There WILL be bloodshed, and the ones crying will be loyal patriotic Americans whose country was destroyed not by Chinese or Iranian nukes, but because some people didn't like the Health Care Reform Act.

212 Gold,

You say judicial review is implicit.  By what means, other than invoking judicial review, can you claim to support judicial review?

You have begged the question.

Please consult Mr. Woods' book on nullification.  You have also committed the staggering fallacy of accept as fact what your liberal law profs spoon fed you.  Liberals lie, it is their nature and the core of their political ideology.

213 212 IF there was no SCOTUS judicial review, you would have a point. Why?  What empowers SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality?  The Constitution itself sure doesn't. Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 22, 2011 09:09 PM (z3veE) The Congress and Presidency each have acknowledged the role of the SCOTUS. Now, if tomorrow they declared that the SCOTUS had usurped that power and enacted a law stripping it of the power of judicial review, I'm not sure what the SCOTUS could do about it. But thr resultant legal chaos would be horrific.

214 .. The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree...

Seems this assumes that federal law fits within the bounds of the 10th amendment (as well as others).   If not, then seems the states might have a case.  Minimally, it would seem a process to minimize damage to state (budgets) caused by federal mandates that are outside federal powers until such cases are heard by the SC...

215 "There is no such thing as the implicit power of review, only a naked power grab.
Posted by: Absalom"

Nope, didn't write that. I wrote, "SCOTUS has the implicit power of review."

"You can rejoice over emanations from penumbras all you wish." 

I've done no such thing nor intend it. If you wish to put words on my keyboard or impute motives, don't bother.

"The text itself is clear in this matter, and both the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers show quite clearly that none of the original ratifiers or the framers believed an all powerful federal government was being erected which was only answerable to itself and its own branches."

Total misread of the matter at hand. Judicial review does not equal 'an all powerful federal government.' If you believe so, then, pound away. I haven't read a coherent argument for that in a while.

216 222 Let me make this clear,I DON'T want any secession.I KNOW it would be disastrous.My contention is that we are being driven to destruction by one means or another.Secession is one of the possible hells we are destined for,that is all.

217 CoolCzech,

So because the federal government agrees with the federal government that the federal government is all powerful, the federal government is indeed all powerful?

That's the sort of mentally ill thinking exhibited by the Tucson shooter and has batshit crazy syllogisms.

Who decides the limits of the power of the federal government?  According to you, the federal government and none else.  That's the sort of agreement that 13 sovereign colonies would agree to after overthrowing a king who claimed absolute power over them?  Really?  Really?

This line of thinking is absurd on its face.

218 @221: well, that would essentially be a second constitutional convention, right? There will never be one, because God only knows what would come out of it. Don't assume only conservative ideas would.

219

Isn't ObamaCare really the only thing, of all the rotten crap O Duce has done, that we could possibly undo?  Isn't that why we're still fighting it, nearly a year after passage (beside the fact that it's a bad law?)

220

Sorry. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and I take oaths very seriously.

You and millions of others.

Â…Against Enemies, foreign and domesticÂ…

Did anybody take an oath to uphold the dictates of Five of Nine?

Did not think so, most just tolerate their shit.

221 The SC gave the Congress too much power with their Commerce Clause bs. So, ultimately, we end up here with EbolaCare and a whole list of other crap chaining us to a tree, and the Constitution itself is the enemy of Freedom.

222

Who decides the limits of the power of the federal government? 

The Constitution is our social contract, the supreme law of the land.  As a great man once said:

First, men are flawed and naturally self-interested. This is not a shifting “moral view.” Thus, in order to form civil society, there has to be a social contract, and part of that contract establishes some degree of monopoly-like power to enforce other parts of the contract. Unless the anointed (Tad and Tribe) are running things, this enforcement mechanism, run by mortals, is dangerous. So restraints are also built into the contract to protect against abuse. Since abuse can never be completely eliminated, yes, the framers intended to bind future generations. The Constitution dwells on these restraints at length because they are the only thing between liberty and the harsh control of flawed man.

223 Gold,

If the power is implicit, and not explicit, it is not clearly enumerated.

Amendment 10 is rather clear, "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."

If judicial review were a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution the text of the Constitution would say so.

Judicial review, like abortion and the "right to privacy" appears nowhere in the text as delegated to the United States.

224 You say judicial review is implicit.  By what means, other than invoking judicial review, can you claim to support judicial review?Posted by: Absalom

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"You have begged the question."

Nope. Right there from your hot little fingers.

"Please consult Mr. Woods' book on nullification.  You have also committed the staggering fallacy of accept as fact what your liberal law profs spoon fed you."

Dare I posit 'begging the question?' No, I shall not. Thanks for the book recommendation, though.

225 the ones crying will be loyal patriotic Americans whose country was destroyed not by Chinese or Iranian nukes, but because some people didn't like the Health Care Reform Act. Posted by: Paul at January 22, 2011 09:13 PM

Your alternative?

It is not just OsamaObamaScare that prompts this, it is the seemingly intentional destruction of our economy, the usurpation of power by all three branches of government, none of whom seem to think there are any "rights reserved to the people," the encouragement of foreign invaders (treason), and a thousand-and-one smaller crimes.

I used to believe in the "next election, we're gonna straighten everything out" meme. And yet I see that doing so not only requires an intelligent, qualified (by law) electorate, but also the willingness of the ruling elite to recognize the messages the public is sending.

The rational way of handling things would be to impeach Obama and recall at least the most notorious criminals in Congress. But mere mention of those acts brings out the Poppin' Fresh crowd to piss and moan about the "optics."

One way out involves possible bloodshed and the other, which seems preferred by armchair conservatives, is to be chewed up and spat out in the hopes that the government will somehow come to its senses before it's too late.

226 Let me make this clear,I DON'T want any secession.I KNOW it would be disastrous.

Indeed.  The Late Unpleasantness, with Nuclear Weapons.

227 RDBrewer,

Whilst ye might be here, have you seen that NYT article about the free-lance spy master?

Fascinating shit (hint, hint.)

228 @228: Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter? Somebody has to have that role. If the SCOTUS became absurd or tyranical, Congress could at some point say enough. And if Congress became tyranical and so did the President, the states legally can rewrite the constitution and abolish the current federal government altogether. And if the STATES become tyranical... That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

229 So restraints are also built into the contract to protect against abuse. Since abuse can never be completely eliminated, yes, the framers intended to bind future generations. The Constitution dwells on these restraints at length because they are the only thing between liberty and the harsh control of flawed man. Posted by: rdbrewer at January 22, 2011 09:21 PM (Ghgw Yes, and they have failed.

230 Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter?

The problem is that SCOTUS doesn't do that job very well...

231 The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree.

You mean like immigration Law?

232 So Article III was written, and passed, in order to give the states nullification?  Sorry, I don't follow.

Article III does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.  We're discussing the Court's assumed role as final arbiter of constitutional legislation.  And if the states are sovereign then it would be totally meaningless for the Constitution to "give" them such a power; the Constitution is a document outlining the makeup and function of the federal government, and was supplemented with a Bill of Rights making clear the limits beyond which that government may not interfere with the states or their citizens, culminating in a 10th Amendment that states clearly that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the preceding document shall be reserved to the states.

A U.S. Supreme Court that holds the final, absolute word on federal legislation impacting the states, in essence the federal government overseeing itself, is not a power granted that government in the Constitution.  Nowhere in the document, nor in any of the amendments added to it in the years since, is there language granting such an authority to any branch of the federal government.

So we would seem to have a power granted the federal government in Article VI, that of having its laws binding upon all the states, coming into direct conflict with the 10th Amendment, which prevents the government from imposing such laws as ObamaCare upon the states in the first place.  At some point there must be a final decision upon laws, except that the Constitution doesn't specifically grant any entity that power.

Which brings us back to nullification.  Why is a power assumed by a sovereign state to protect its own interests less legitimate than one assumed by a branch of the federal government, one that is not constitutionally authorized to do what it does?

233 Goldbricker, I'll pass that on to the open bloggers.  I'm on the verge of cracking a book.  Just can't. pull.  away...

234 243 'Cause our government is bigger than your government.We have ships tanks and planes and nukes too.

235 @222-Paul If the Healthcare Reform Act stands, then America has already died. The neo-secessionists would just be cremating the body and getting on with their damn lives.

236 Maybe God will save us with a nice world war.

237 Your blanket statement concerning the so-called Supremacy Clause is misleading. Alexander Hamilton addressed the extent of this Clause in Federalist Essay No. 33: "t is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the landÂ… It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the ConstitutionÂ…" In the New York Ratifying Convention, Hamilton stated: "I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this: that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government. The states, as well as individuals, are bound by these laws: but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner the states have certain independent powers, in which they are supremeÂ…" There is a separation of power between the States and their federal government. (See Federalist Essay No. 45) The federal government does not exist and has no power outside of that separation of power. When the federal government steps outside of its sphere of power, the States, as the exclusive parties to the Constitution, (See Article VII) have the absolute right nullify any act of their federal government that transcends the separation of power.

238 Did anybody take an oath to uphold the dictates of Five of Nine?

I took an oath to uphold the dictates of Seven of Nine.  Does that count?

239 Gold,

Rather simply... as my hot little fingers showed... SCOTUS should and is restricted to appellate jurisdiction to be exercised only in matters of law and fact, with the exception of the list of exceptions immediately preceding the relevant clause.

Have you even bothered to read the document we are discussing here?

240 @243: the SCOTUS is NOT the final, absolute power because a constitutional amendment can always overrule it. And if Congress refuses to pass an amendment the nation demands, the states can gather together and abolish the current constitution and congress.

241 228: Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter?

The constitution, on [the theory only the SC can decide constitutionality], is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.

My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal. I will explain myself by examples, which, having occurred while I was in office, are better known to me, and the principles which governed them. --Thomas Jefferson

242 251 @243: the SCOTUS is NOT the final, absolute power because a constitutional amendment can always overrule it. And if Congress refuses to pass an amendment the nation demands, the states can gather together and abolish the current constitution and congress.

How is this an argument against the legitimacy of nullification?

243 Interesting.  So I'm reading this article: http://tinyurl.com/4jx67rh and it looks like the Article 5 convention thing has been attempted many many times but none were successful, but a few were very close to succeeding.  There was one for a federal balanced budget amendment back in the early 80's that fell only 2 states short.  Would now be a fertile time to restart this process?  The article suggests that once a convention is called, it doesn't have to be limited in scope.  And the R's have a huge majority in legislatures.  This is our chance.

244 oops sock off

245 251 @243: the SCOTUS is NOT the final, absolute power because a constitutional amendment can always overrule it. And if Congress refuses to pass an amendment the nation demands, the states can gather together and abolish the current constitution and congress.

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 22, 2011 09:32 PM (tJjm/)

Yeah uhhu, just keep thinking that.  Why its not like anyone would ever attempt to argue in court that an amendment to a constitution is actually unconstitutional and attempt to get it nullified.

246 Who says Marbury is constitutional? SCOTUS? Why do they get to decide? Oh yeah, because of Marbury. It's a "because I said so argument", which isn't all that persuasive.

I bet if you say "because I said so" in latin, its a winning argument because of the "what the hell did he just say?" factor. Sort of like "Staris decisis" or whatever.

247 "Article III does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review.  We're discussing the Court's assumed role as final arbiter of constitutional legislation.  And if the states are sovereign then it would be totally meaningless for the Constitution to "give" them such a power;  ... Posted by: The War"

Thanks for the reply.

That's why I had a bit of a problem with your 'question' to my 'question.' They aren't really connected.

"A U.S. Supreme Court that holds the final, absolute word on federal legislation impacting the states, in essence the federal government overseeing itself, is not a power granted that government in the Constitution.  Nowhere in the document, nor in any of the amendments added to it in the years since, is there language granting such an authority to any branch of the federal government."

I could be an ass and insist for a clear response for why the Founders included Article III with the language I've been bouncing off Absalom, but here's another take;

It is granted to the Federal government because the USC is the framework for the Federal government. Yes, the Federal government is part of the Federal government. Stunning, I know.

Honestly, how could the USC describe an independent and authorized body to review Federal Law without being part and parcel? That's a Schoedinger cat in an Escher puzzle.

248 "Well, if the SCOTUS can't rule laws unconstitutional, absalom, WHO would? The local Shriners chapter?"

 Since we've now moved on to the real issue, that's a great question.

Absent a clear delegation of the power to nullify to the federal government, I think Amendment 10 says something about "all powers."

It's almost like the document means what it says and says what it means.

249 249 Did anybody take an oath to uphold the dictates of Five of Nine? I took an oath to uphold the dictates of Seven of Nine.  Does that count? Posted by: Jack Ryan at January 22, 2011 09:31 PM (PaSAU) You blew it when you asked to see Seven in Nine.

250 from Wikipedia:

Article V of the Constitution specifies that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states petition Congress for a constitutional amendment on the same subject, then Congress must call a convention for proposing that amendment. Between April 29, 1975 and January 29, 1980, 34 petitions from 30 different state legislatures were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The participating states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. Since 1980, two additional state legislatures have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment, bringing the total number of participating states to 32. If two additional state legislatures were to petition, then the required two-thirds majority of states would be reached (34 out of 50 states) and some contend that Congress would be required to call a convention to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment. In December 2008, the Ohio legislature considered making Ohio the 33rd state to petition for a convention on the subject, but decided against it.

251 @259: OK, so what mechanism would the states employ? Send delegates to a meeting to have a vote? Don't we call that, Congress? We can't have a nation if every individual srate can decide any national law can be nullified. That would be total chaos. The USA would fall apart.

252 Gold,

You're finally coming around.  How could the USC describe such a thing?

Well, it COULD do so in a multitude of ways.  However, it does not do so.  It establishes an appellate court on matters of law and fact, that has original jurisdiction in a handful of expressly defined areas.  It does not establish a Constitutional Court with the power of nullification.

You are still presuming what you seek to prove, absent any textual support.  The argument in favor of judicial review can not be "Judicial review is there because people who made up judicial review say judicial review is there."

Demonstrate judicial review on its own merits, or admit that it does not appear in the text.

Further, please demonstrate that the founders intended to create a federal government accountable only to itself that eliminated the sovereignty of states, and square that circle against the clear text of the document.  "Sovereign" and "Subject" are mutually exclusive.

253

It is not just OsamaObamaScare that prompts this, it is the seemingly intentional destruction of our economy, the usurpation of power by all three branches of government, none of whom seem to think there are any "rights reserved to the people," the encouragement of foreign invaders (treason), and a thousand-and-one smaller crimes.

Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 22, 2011 09:23 PM

Exactly, we are approaching $15 Trillion in debt and my 4 month old does not deserve the burden of our federal government run amuck.  I would like to see people come to their logical senses, but that means cronyism would have to be an old English word instead of modern English, and it only seems to get worse...look at the Jeffery Immelt appointment.  GE has been in bed with the goverment for far too long and that is being shown as the path to enlightment for corporations and individuals, just liket the Obamacare waivers.  If we are a nation of laws for the connected, we are no longer a nation of free men.

And a side note.  Isn't it interesting that the Constitution is flexible as a double jointed ballerina at a Cirque de Soleil show, yet case law argued in front of the Supreme Court is somehow set in stone?  BS.  If the Constitution is a living breathing document then sure as hell, case law can be overridden at the drop of a hat.  So I say to the states, nullify away.

254 Shorter Gabe: If Obama orders us into camps, I'll go quietly. Because "orders are orders". In 1933, he wouldn't have known 6 million dead lay ahead. Now he does.

255 Absent a clear delegation of the power to nullify to the federal government, I think Amendment 10 says something about "all powers."

It's almost like the document means what it says and says what it means.
Posted by: Absalom

Well, thanks for finally answering the question. Better late than never, I suppose.

So states get the review? That would mean, ultimately, that all legislation is purely an arena of politics and zero judiciary. Interesting concept to be sure, but them black robes are going to be awfully lonely.

256 CoolCzech,

The Constitution does not mandate that we have no Chaos.

I know the idea of a world without central planning and diktats from DC is a scary world, but freedom can be frightening.

The rather obvious conclusion here is that, by and large, we should have almost no national laws.  Let each of the many states decide laws for themselves.

257 Maybe God will save us with a nice world war.

You joke but I think that's more likely that succession.  If the global financial system collapses, we end up renouncing all our debts held by foreigners.  Everyone then has to seize resources or they get frozen out.  Canada and Latin America are right next door to us.  China grabs for Manchuria, or Russia goes for Persia and the Middle East.  Western Europe's boned.  India probably as well.

God knows who tries for Africa.

258 268 Not joking and yes,it is more likely.The world is a tinder box right now.

259 Gold,

I'm glad you've finally come around to the argument in favor of nullification.  States do indeed get the review, as the founders intended, as the text makes explicitly clearly.  Especially so in amendment 10, powers not expressly delegated etc.

The primary activity of law making and governance was to occur at the state level.

What part of "Sovereign" don't you understand?

260 It's pretty clear to me that a constitutional convention will be needed in the future to clear up all the issues, problems and ambiguities in the Constitution. The patchwork solutions really only go so far.

261 "However, it does not do so.  It establishes an appellate court on matters of law and fact, that has original jurisdiction in a handful of expressly defined areas.  It does not establish a Constitutional Court with the power of nullification. [...] Posted by: Absalom"

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"You are still presuming what you seek to prove, absent any textual support."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"The argument in favor of judicial review can not be "Judicial review is there because people who made up judicial review say judicial review is there.

Demonstrate judicial review on its own merits, or admit that it does not appear in the text."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

"Further, please demonstrate that the founders intended to create a federal government accountable only to itself that eliminated the sovereignty of states, and square that circle against the clear text of the document."

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ..."

262 It's pretty clear to me that a constitutional convention will be needed in the future to clear up all the issues, problems and ambiguities in the Constitution.

It's our best hope. 

263 Absalom, you act like Congress is populated by aliens. The representatives in Congress were sent there by the same people that send legislators to the state capitals, after all. What makes you think you wouldn't wind up with 50 state versions of Washington, D.C.? Do Sacramento or Albany look like model governments to you?

264 That's why I had a bit of a problem with your 'question' to my 'question.' They aren't really connected.

But they are, in that both address actions for which there is no specific constitutional authorization or answer.  Therefore, if five Supreme Court Justices end up discovering a right to health care in the Constitution then nullification at the state level must be an available recourse, because allowing ObamaCare to stand simply is not an option.

265 CoolCzech,

And further, better that the nation be held together by the force of Mr. Lincoln's legions and 600,000 dead?

266 All fucking lawyers must fucking hang.

267 CoolCzech,

If Sacramento and Albany can not resolve their own affairs, let it remain Sacramento's and Albany's problem.

Let me be clear.  I am not making a utilitarian argument.  I am not making a pragmatic argument.  I am making a principled and textual argument.

If you wish to see the Constitution change in some fashion, I fully support your efforts to change it through the amendment process.  If you wish to use the amendment process to empower SCOTUS to have judicial review, or to formally eliminate nullification, or to do still some other thing in still some other way, I am fully supportive of your effort to do so (as a matter of principle, I may disagree with the specifics of your effort, but I support the process and the mechanism).

The fact remains, a ultra powerful centralized government possessing unlimited power over 50 subject states is not what the Constitution gives us.

If (and/or when) you or others manage to amend the Constitution, I will defend your amendment as the rule of law with equal vigor and force (even as I may seek to have it changed via further amendment), because that would then be the Supreme Law of the Land.

But as it stands, the text does not read as you say it reads.  It gives an imperfect government, no doubt, but we should be a nation of laws and not men.

268 People are tired of this legal hair splitting.Lawyers can argue both sides ad infinitum while the country burns.

269 @276: If it hadn't been, the USA would not have saved the world from Nazism and Soviet Communism. I for one like that America was saved from disintegration by Lincoln.

270 Gold,

Intentionally omitting the key line that explains clearly the SCOTUS functions as an appellate and not a Constitutional court doesn't make your argument any less a poor work of sophistry.

Unfortunately for your argument, there are other words in the Constitution besides the ones you seek to distort.

271 "Therefore, if five Supreme Court Justices end up discovering a right to health care in the Constitution then nullification at the state level must be an available recourse, because allowing ObamaCare to stand simply is not an option. Posted by: The War"

Both you and I know the SCOTUS never makes rulings so broadly. The rulings are narrow and focused on text, both at the legislation at hand and of the USC, ... (and other BS like the Articles and int'l law apparently, but grant me just a rule not the exception here.)

Right to Health care:
There's a lot packed into that statement particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights. How would that pass muster under the 4th Amendment? How does a Federal Government force health care provider to provide service?

Good question, right? Let's hope some 3rd branch of government addresses that. Or a the people through some weird popular franchise.

I know, crazy stuff, right?

272 Czech,

I for one am disgusted that 600,000 men had to die for Mr. Lincoln's ego.

A government that requires the repeated and frequent slaughter of its citizenry in order to maintain its power is not the government our founders intended us to have.  So it is true with the civil war, so it is true of Mr. Wilson's adventurism in Europe, so it is true of abortion today.

273 Gold,

Roe v. Wade.

We both know the court never makes decisions so broadly.  It's not like 50 million americans have had to die in order to make your judicial philosophy work.

274 "Intentionally omitting the key line that explains clearly the SCOTUS functions as an appellate and not a Constitutional court doesn't make your argument any less a poor work of sophistry.
Posted by: Absalom"

I omitted? I omitted?

Heh, nice one. It's almost as if you didn't provide the petard to your own hoisting.

275 @278: As a practical matter, due to judicial review - a practice accepted not just by all Congresses and Presidents, but by generations of Americans - the Constitution is not just the signed and amended document bearing the name. It's ALSO the sum total of SCOTUS constitutional decisions sine the early 19th century.

276 Both you and I know the SCOTUS never makes rulings so broadly. The rulings are narrow and focused on text, both at the legislation at hand and of the USC, ... (and other BS like the Articles and int'l law apparently, but grant me just a rule not the exception here.)

Right to Health care:
There's a lot packed into that statement particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights. How would that pass muster under the 4th Amendment? How does a Federal Government force health care provider to provide service?


You know, it just occurred to me that today is the 38th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. 

277 These debates tend to wander into crazy town.

278 Both you and I know the SCOTUS never makes rulings so broadly. The rulings are narrow and focused on text, Posted by: goldbricker esq at January 22, 2011 09:58 PM (h2t8r) Must be nice being able to afford such powerful drugs. Even tanked on ValuRite I still can't believe the SCOTUS is narrow in scope or ruling. They have and will continue to fuck us as have the other two branches. The federal government has betrayed the constitution in every capacity and is no longer a legal government.

279 @283: I don't have the time or inclination to refight the Civil War with you. I might say, however, that a third or quarter of the South's population felt the Civil War was about them, not someone's ego.

280 Czech,

As a practical matter where does your interpertation of the text appear in the text?

As a practical matter I am all for adding "the sum total (etc.)" to the Constitution as an amendment, if the nation wishes to do so.

And as a practical matter it currently appears nowhere in the text.

Are we to be a nation of laws, or a nation of men?  A nation of laws follows the rule of law, and the supreme law of the land says nothing about "as a practical matter (etc.)"

281 Czech,

Your judicial philosophy resulted in 600,000 dead at the hand of Mr. Lincoln's legions, and 50 million dead to abortion.

You are attempting to make pragmatic/practical arguments, I am attempting to show you that your "pragmatism" is nothing but wholesale slaughter.

When one side must resort to violence in order to respond to the other side, laws are no longer ruling.  That is the entire substance of this discussion: shall we be bound by the law (the text of the Constitution as it plainly reads) or by men ("practical" and "pragmatic" concerns amounting to "whoever has power is right.")

282 288 These debates tend to wander into crazy town. Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 10:04 PM (5Y1gW) I think you know we've reached the end of fruitfall conversation when we're arguing about the outcome of the Civil War.

283 And as a practical matter it currently appears nowhere in the text.

Practical matters, well, they matter.  I argued on a older thread that the Civil Rights Act of 64 was almost certainly unconstitutional under a strict constructionist view, but that it doesn't matter now.  The polity has accepted the Act as being consistent with the 13th and 14th Amendments.  No one could imagine that if it was proposed as an amendment today, it wouldn't pass in a fortnight and be ratified in a month.  In fact, to argue that it's not consistent gets you considered a crank at best.

It's kind of a common law thing.

Abortion is an example where the polity has not accept the overreach.

284 Czech,

So then a conflict with force of arms settled the matter of nullification and judicial review?

That is the very definition of "might makes right" which is the very thing the Constitution was supposed to be prevent.

Is the idea that you might be wrong really so threatening to your worldview that you would rather assert that enough violence somehow establishes a nation of laws and justice?  Good God.  That is well and truly frightening.

285 Nullification is absolutely valid based on the statements of the founding fathers, but sometimes states tried to take it a bit too far, trying to nullify bills they just didn't care for.

286 Christopher,

If they are sovereign states how can they be bound by anything except which they choose to permit to bind them?  To say otherwise is to say they are not sovereign.

287 Marbury v Madison Dred Scott v Sanford Roe v Wade The courts are not only fallible but historically on the side of tyranny and oppression. The rights of man will not bow before any court. We paid a high price in blood to free us from one king. I would not accept 9 in black robes.

288 okay, this is what I"ve been looking for.
KG and toby928 is right, the only way this is going to get resolved is to call an Article V convention.
32 states have applied for an Article V convention for the purpose of drafting a balanced budget amendment, but 12 have rescinded their applications, leaving 20 who still want an Article V convention.  If we convince 14 more, then we have our convention.  Here's the thing: Once the convention is established, there's no limits on what it can do in terms of drafting amendments.  The amendments would still have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states though so it's not like the convention would have carte blanche power to rewrite the Constitution.

289 299 I doubt 34 states could get together on anything.Unless it is well and truly too fucking late.

290 I just hope we don't end up with a constitution like Alabama's.  We so feared the very thing we are seeing with the US Congress that the constitution is totally negative as far as government power goes.  Everything that anyone wants to do has to be passed as an amendment.  We have 825 of them.

There needs to just be a few tweaks to the US Constitution to reinforce popular sovereignty.

291 Both you and I know the SCOTUS never makes rulings so broadly.

I certainly hope that Justice Kennedy would not go that way - but frankly, whether or not Anthony Kennedy thinks socialized medicine is a good idea should not have the power to overturn the quite clear Constitution. I know the four liberal justices would as long as they knew they had the five votes.

292 I think I said that wrong.  The Alabama constituion is negative toward any power other than the central government.  We were apparently worried that localities would be a law unto themselves like the Federal Congress.

BTW, from Wiki:

At 357,157 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world. (The English translation of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.)

293 300 299 I doubt 34 states could get together on anything.Unless it is well and truly too fucking late.

Posted by: steevy at January 22, 2011 10:25 PM (5Y1gW)

well actually, it would have to be 38 states   but sure we ignore the bluest of the blue states, create momentum with the deep red states, then press the purplish ones

but the important thing is, we would bypass Congress completely

294 38 states are never going to agree to neuter the federal government. Some depend too much on the fed's money. Others are leftist strongholds. So take a constitutional convention of the list of good ideas.

295 There is no need for a Constitutional Convention. The problem is the federal government has been violating the separation of power between the States and their federal government.

In Federalist Essay No. 45, James Madison explained this separation of power.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

John Jay, one of the authors of the Federalist Essays and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, explained the separation of power in the New York State Convention debating ratification of the proposed constitution in 1788.

“What are the objects of our state legislatures? Innumerable things of small moment occupy their attention; matters of a private nature, which require much minute and local information. The objects of the general (federal) government are not of this nature. They comprehend the interests of the states in relation to each other, and in relation to foreign nations.”

The limited powers of the federal government, as stated by Madison and Jay, pertain to external or foreign affairs and relations between the States, while the numerous and indefinite powers reserved to the individual States pertain to the lives, liberties and properties of the people.

Based on this separation of power, heath care falls in the sphere of power reserved to the States.

296 The problem is the federal government has been violating the separation of power between the States and their federal government.

Agreed.  And we correct this how?

297 38 states are never going to agree to neuter the federal government.

Not even if it means more power for them?

The bluest ones won't go along with it in any event, no.  But there are only about 10-11 hardcore, irreedeemibly blue states - CA, HI, VT, MA, CT, RI, IL(?), NY(?), DE, WA, MD.  The rest are at least plausibly persuadable.

298 My personal opinion toby928™ is...

The state legislatures need to adopt separation of power resolutions and put the federal government on notice that every act, past, present and future, outside of the separation of power will be nullified as a violation of the original grant of power. Nullification would be across the board and include laws passed by Congress, administrative rules and regulations, judicial determinations, executive orders, etc. 

Since the federal government does not exist and his no constitutional power outside of the separation of power, nullification is the proper remedy for any violation of the original grant of power. There is a very important reason why the States need to invoke this strategy; it prevents the federal judiciary from intervening.

The power of the federal judiciary only extends to cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Any violation of the original grant of power does not constitute a case or controversy under the Constitution. It is a violation outside of the Constitution. Thus, the federal judiciary has no constitutional authority to hear or adjudicate the violation.

When the federal government acts outside of the original grant of power it is a political question that goes to the nature of the compact between the several States. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court stated: “the judicial power cannot extend to political compacts.” As stated by Marshall, the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary cannot extend to these questions.

In the alternative, if you believe in the amendment process, the States could adopt a separation of power amendment and set the constitutional separation of power in stone. It would do the same thing as the separation of power resolution as far as nullification.

299 So we put you down for nullification then.  Now, can we do that.  The subject of this thread.

300

"The U.S. Constitution is quite explicit that federal law and the U.S. Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and binding on the states. It neither authorizes nor implies state power to simply disregard federal laws with which they disagree."

Except that passage says:

"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Then it furthermore states:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Simply put, the text of the Constitution suggests that every last member of the federal and state governments should all have authority to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, and should "support" the Constitution in ways within their authority. For state legislators, that would mean passing laws/resolutions. Nullification didn't come up out of whole cloth. The idea that the Supreme Court would be the sole, final, binding arbiter for constitutional decisions is a modernism. If anything, the text of the Constitution gives greatest support to the President having that power (duty to faithfully execute laws + supremacy clause, his oath of office being even more explicit than the one I just quoted, and more all point in that direction), not the Supreme Court.

301 The rest are at least plausibly persuadable. Posted by: chemjeff at January 22, 2011 10:40 PM (PaSAU) Bullshit. By that standard I might plausibly fuck Christina Hendricks. It could happen. It never will, but technically it isn't impossible. How will Congressman Dickhole pay for his new condo without Fed dollars rolling in?

302 The 'People' , the true soverigns of this nation, sent proxy 'representatives' to write, vote and create the constitution. The Constitution was then brought back to be voted on by the peoples of the various 'States'. These various States approved the Constitution which grants limited powers to the Federal govt and leaves the rest to the People of the States.

not sure of the actual verbage, but the Fed may legislate "pursuiant"  of the rules laid out in the Constitution -- as granted by the People.

If the Fed breaks those rules and ignores those rules, the People have every right to nullify their unconstitutional laws.

The people created the constitution, the people ratified it, the people are the true sovereigns. If the Fed will not follow the contract that was ratified then the People will nullify it wholly.

bring it on.

303 Fuck the Alliance. Brown Coats forever.

304 If they are sovereign states how can they be bound by anything except which they choose to permit to bind them?

Because no state is sovereign over the US constitution.

Here's how the founding fathers saw it:
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." -Thomas Jefferson
"

he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction. -James Madison
"Every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact (casus non faederis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits. Without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them." -Thomas Jefferson

That last one the most obvious statement of nullification by the founders. It was based on the constitution, not state whims. The people of the US, as represented by their duly elected officials, interpret the constitution, not courts. Courts interpret laws by the constitution.

305 toby928™...yes you can put me down for nullification.

 If you hire a painter to paint the outside of your house and grant him the power to buy the supplies necessary to complete the task, what do you do if he takes the secondary grant of power and claims it also applies to buying supplies to paint the inside the house? Do you ask him decide the question or do you nullify his act as a violation of the original grant of power?

Same principle in my mind and no specific form is needed other than notice and justification for the actions being taken.

306 Same principle in my mind and no specific form is needed other than notice and justification for the actions being taken.

Sensible, but can it work.  Nullification has failed, and failed badly, in the past.

307 and for some reason I not putting interrogatives on my questions. 

 ???????

yeah, still works.

308 Toby,

It is a matter of principle and not of pragmatism.

Regardless of if it can work, short of a Article V convention, it is the only recourse.

We are not liberals.  We believe in law, principles, and morality.  It is their sphere to invoke might-makes-right, utilitarianism, and tyranny.

If we invoke any other course of action other than the most morally right, most principally correct, we risk becoming what it is we seek to defeat.

For better or worse, nullification is the only recourse available.

309 toby928™...I think it all depends on the number of States willing to step to the plate. I think we can agree that based on the number of States suing... they are getting pissed-off at the federal government's usurpation of power.

310 Regardless of if it can work, short of a Article V convention, it is the only recourse.

I place more faith in the House to delay, and the next elections to bring a bit of a restoration than I do in an overarching Nullification.  I think an Article V Convention will have to be our ultimate peaceable solution.

If we invoke any other course of action other than the most morally right, most principally correct, we risk becoming what it is we seek to defeat.

I disagree.  Pragmatism and persuasion are the key to our system.  We are not starting from a blank slate and we don't have an overwhelming majority who even understand our principles, much less that will fight for them.  And make no mistake, unless the overwhelming majority of states go along with Nullification, it will mean fighting.

311

What a load of bullshit. The Supreme Court was never intended to be, and in fact CANNOT BE a check on Federal power because the Supreme Court operates at the Federal level itself. Asking the Supreme Court to defend state and popular sovereignty is putting the fox in the hen house.

Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense given the philosophical foundations of the Constitution. Gabriel Malor has apparently never read the 9th and 10th amendments and tried to make sense of them in relation to the rest of the document. The people and the states are the ultimate arbiters of whether the Federal government is behaving as it should. And the people and the states are the source of sovereignty—not the Court.

312 I thought the rule was that Federal law was supreme when liberals wanted it to be supreme, and subordinate when they wanted it to be subordinate.

I'm so confused, the rules keep changing...

313 the 17th needs to be the seconds amendment ever repealed. Return the Senate to the States and many of these issues will be fixed. I would add that a Senator serves at the discretion of the State and may be recalled/replaced at anytime. On a side note, why is it that Marbury vs Madison strikes me about the same as Ted Bundy putting himself in charge of the girls dorm?

314 Hey Gabby, did you get your legal knowledge from one of those little books in a Cracker Jack box?  Just kidding, I know all the top legal minds post at this site.  I have seen Jackie Chiles post here many times.

315 #222, the Civil War proved that Abraham Lincoln's army could beat Jefferson Davis' army. It proved nothing about the legalities of secession.

And the leadership of the US military has the instinct for rebellion of a Pekingese dog, so I wouldn't expect them to throw in with the dissidents at first. We don't have a lot of the "Seven Days In May" sort anymore.

As long as Federal employees are the arbiters of Federal power, we're fucked. I see no realistic way to fix it. It's all going to end in tears, bankruptcy, economic collapse, and other bad things. 

316 If the constitution is the supreme law of the land then why is the border with Mexico not being defended? DADT could never be repaeled through the courts because the president has constitutional control over the military. The government is picking the laws it wishes to enforce and ignoring the ones is it dislikes purely for politics sake.
If a few states try nullification it may seem unworkable, but what if ALL of the states pursuing action in the courts also pursue nullification? With over half of the states involved it would have to be the federal government that backs down.
Pursue this path all the way.

317 Wow. Just read through the the comments. Yeah, Sunday morning and stuff. Just a thought. "Our" government is already throwing us headlong over an economic cliff. I think there is nothing that can stop the plunge at this point. Unfundeed liabilities, yada yah. HellCare will accelerate (with multiple built-in drivers) the car up the jump-ramp.  We argue the finer points of what is a simple and clear document among ourselves. What shall we discuss as the car is in free-space?

318 Why did so many states nullify the REAL ID act? As recently as 2007?

This Malor guy seems like a complete idiot.

319 The Constitution is NOT what 5/9 of the SCOTUS says it is; it is what WE say it is. And we say no. If the Federales are willing to declare war on 70% of the electorate, or more than 50% of the "States", to force us all to buy something we don't want, we'll just have to respond accordingly. But outright civil war is the very purpose of Cloward-Piven isn't it?

320 23 Gabe, what do you suggest states do to resist unconstitutional encroachments and usurpations by the feds?

Don't worry about what Gabe suggests.  The founders told you what you have the right to do, should circumstances warrant.

321 75

De jure, Gabriel, you're correct. De facto, if 37 states were to pass essentially identical nullification bills, we would very quickly see Congress pass a repeal bill, and the president would sign it. The threat of a much wider rebellion against federal overreach would be too great even for an Obama to ignore.

 

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at January 22, 2011 07:54 PM (FeYbR)

welcome in from the cold.

322 I completely disagree with the conclusions of this article. The states are sovereign. The Unites States is a convenience.  Just because the federal government has abused its power in the past does not legitimize it in the future.

323 I can't resist a thread of good mocking. Constitution==(Supreme Law) Federal Govt passes unconstitutional law. State nullifies law. Gabriel: "State, don't be treasonous by resisting unconstitutional law, after all, we know the Constitution is the supreme law of the land!!!" Thank goodness we have lawyers to clear this stuff up for us.

324

I mostly agree with you.

But we can all read the Constitution. Its meaning is plain.

But what if the executive does not follow it?

But what if the legislature does not follow it?

But what if the judiciary does not follow it?

We are coming to that point. Do not the states as sovereign then have the right to enforce it?

Somebody has to eventually or it is anarchy.

325 According to the 2010 market survey, we can see that Canada Goose Apparel had a hot sale and consequently Canada Goose Company made great profits. Exactly Canada goose clothing indeed performs very well in providing warmth and showing fashion looks. It is predicted that 2011 Canada goose clothing also has a good response in the market. How do you think of it? Please leave your message here. Exactly you will also speak highly of Canada goose. Perhaps you could buy canada goose and experience  canada goose parka , which will help you to learn well about this brand.(yang)