Nullification

[Frank DeMartini]

I just wrote a review of Thomas Woods' book on Nullification as a means of stopping federal power under the Obama Administration. Let me know what you think of it.

http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2011/09/nullification/ (http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2011/09/nullification/)

[lamboguy]

frank i am going to give you the bottom line and its really pretty simple. we live in a fiat based currency system these days. that give the opportunity to the 450 people sitting in congress the opportunity to pick your pockets. we are clearly headed back to a gold standard in some form. this is quite evident by the new political force in the way of "the tea party" that should put a damper on either political party robbing you. gold is the only salvation for this country.

go long america, buy gold

[LottaKash]

I just wrote a review of Thomas Woods' book on Nullification as a means of stopping federal power under the Obama Administration. Let me know what you think of it.

http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2011/09/nullification/ (http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2011/09/nullification/)

Nice review Frank...

I can see nullification as a means to and end, namely checking the current Gangsters now in power....

What I don't fully understand tho, is how in the heck, with our government setup as a system of checks and balances, is how the congress has given the executive branch of these 3-checks, so much more power than they should have.....Imo, the chief has way too much power, and it is not being checked by the other two remaining branches of our gov't....

In that "spirt", I say YES to Nullification, :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: ....Hell yeah !!!..:jump:

best,

[mostpost]

I just wrote a review of Thomas Woods' book on Nullification as a means of stopping federal power under the Obama Administration. Let me know what you think of it.

http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2011/09/nullification/ (http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2011/09/nullification/)

Nullification is not a legal use of a state's powers. Only the federal Judiciary has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. The very idea of nullification is at odds with the theory of a United States. If any state can declare a law unconstitutional, we are left with a hodgepodge of unenforceable laws.

There are no clauses in the constitution that give the states the right to declare a federal law unconstitutional and the idea of nullification was not discussed in the Constitutional Convention. In fact there were several discussions which stated that the interpretation of laws and their constitutionality was exclusively the province of the federal judiciary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

For example, George Mason said that under the Constitution, federal judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void."[9] James Madison said: "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void."[10] Several of the delegates said that the federal courts would have power to determine disputes between the federal government and the states, indicating that the Supreme Court would have final authority over the states. Charles Pinckney referred to federal judges as "Umpires between the U. States and the individual States," while John Rutledge indicated that the Supreme Court would "judge between the U.S. and particular states."[11]

Furthermore:
The records of the state ratifying conventions do not include any statements by delegates asserting that the states would have the power to nullify federal laws.
and:
The records of the state ratifying conventions include over three dozen statements in more than half the states asserting that the federal courts would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

The Federalist Papers do not support the idea of nullification.
Federalist No. 78 says that the federal courts have the power "to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution."[21] Federalist No. 80 asserts that the final authority to interpret the Constitution and federal law lies in the federal courts, not the states, because of the need for uniformity.[22] Federalist No. 82 says that because of the need for uniformity and the federal government's need to effectively enforce its laws, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state courts in cases arising under the Constitution or federal law.[23]


Any number of court cases have affirmed that the power to overturn a Federal Law rests exclusively with the Federal Courts and not with the states.
These include but are not limited to:
United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816),
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821).
Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

One other minor detail. We fought a Civil War to determine whether states could nullify Federal Law. The anti-nullification side won.

Just another goofy conservative theory that does not hold up under scrutiny.

[redshift1]

One word, Regnery, explains it all.

[lamboguy]

the state of utah is sponsoring a bill to legalize gold as a form as currency in their state, there are 11 others trying to do the very same thing.

gold is currency, and keeps your pollitians honest.

[Frank DeMartini]

To begin with, many Constitutional Writers believe that it is Constitutional.

Secondly, it was used by the Northern States to Nullify the Fugitive Slave Laws. If you look at your history carefully, you will be surprised that the North used it more than the South.

We did not fight a war over nullificiation. We fought a war over cessation and slavery. Two unrelated issues.

[toetoe]

We fought a war over cessation and slavery. Two unrelated issues.



Please tell me you meant secession.


Yours incessantly,
T. O'Toe



P.S. If at first you don't secede, nullify. tt

[mostpost]

To begin with, many Constitutional Writers believe that it is Constitutional.
That may well be, but constitutional writers have no authority on the subject. Federal Judges do. Anyone who thinks that nullification is a valid and legal process is ignoring two hundred years of legal precedent, the intentions of the framers and the opinions of most states.

Secondly, it was used by the Northern States to Nullify the Fugitive Slave Laws. If you look at your history carefully, you will be surprised that the North used it more than the South.
I will take your word that the North used it more than the South, but you left out one word: "Unsuccessfully"

We did not fight a war over nullificiation. We fought a war over cessation and slavery. Two unrelated issues.

Yes, the Civil War was fought over Secession, but the South tried to secede because of slavery and states' rights. Nullification was one of the states' rights which the South claimed.

[redshift1]

Please tell me you meant secession.


Yours incessantly,
T. O'Toe



P.S. If at first you don't secede, nullify. tt


+1

[Actor]

Only the federal Judiciary has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional.Actually, any judge can declare a law unconstitutional, but the effect of his decision is limited to his jurisdiction. And his decision is subject to review, possibly right up to the Supreme Court which has the final say.

The power of nullification, if any, is its challenge for the Federal government to enforce the law. In the case of California's legalization of medical marijuana the feds have simply chosen, for the time being, not to enforce federal law. If the federal government ever decides to enforce its anti-marijuana laws in California, then a lot of California citizens could go to jail.

As for the 10th amendment, I'm unaware of any case in which the Supreme Court has decided for a State against the Federal government in a state's rights case. Correct me if I'm wrong but the 10th appears to be an inconvenient amendment which the high court has chosen to ignore for over 200 years. For practical purposes the 10th amendment is null and void.

[mostpost]

Actually, any judge can declare a law unconstitutional, but the effect of his decision is limited to his jurisdiction. And his decision is subject to review, possibly right up to the Supreme Court which has the final say.

The power of nullification, if any, is its challenge for the Federal government to enforce the law. In the case of California's legalization of medical marijuana the feds have simply chosen, for the time being, not to enforce federal law. If the federal government ever decides to enforce its anti-marijuana laws in California, then a lot of California citizens could go to jail.

As for the 10th amendment, I'm unaware of any case in which the Supreme Court has decided for a State against the Federal government in a state's rights case. Correct me if I'm wrong but the 10th appears to be an inconvenient amendment which the high court has chosen to ignore for over 200 years. For practical purposes the 10th amendment is null and void.

I'm not sure if you are exactly correct. There have been a number of times when a court has ruled that the Federal government exceeded its authority and tried to legislate a matter that should be left to the states. However, the courts never, as far as I can see, ruled that a state has the right to nullify a Federal law on its own. The law has to be challenged in the courts and the decision made there. Here is the FindLaw article on the 10th. Read it, if you want, and decide for yourself if I am correct.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/

[Actor]

I'm not sure if you are exactly correct. There have been a number of times when a court has ruled that the Federal government exceeded its authority and tried to legislate a matter that should be left to the states. However, the courts never, as far as I can see, ruled that a state has the right to nullify a Federal law on its own. The law has to be challenged in the courts and the decision made there. Here is the FindLaw article on the 10th. Read it, if you want, and decide for yourself if I am correct.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. :)