(medical marijuana, immigration, Real ID, etc.)
Debra Medina
Gov. Rick Perry
Leo Berman
Posted on 02/20/2010 6:09:26 AM PST by wolfcreek
The stale old campaign issues education, toughness on crime, taxes have lulled countless voters into inaction for years. But sometimes an issue comes along that energizes a portion of the voting public. This is one of those times.
Politicians and voters haven't discussed the issue of nullification in about a half-century. But now it's back. And several candidates and incumbents are chattering about writing state laws that would neutralize federal ones.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
(medical marijuana, immigration, Real ID, etc.)
Debra Medina
Gov. Rick Perry
Leo Berman
Update on Tenth Amendment Legislation in Connecticut
2/19/10
Thank you to everyone who, once again, made the trip to Hartford for the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee meeting on February 19, 2010. We are pleased to report that the Committee did vote to raise the Tenth Amendment resolution for a public hearing.
As you recall, we asked the Committee to raise three proposals: (1) a resolution requesting Congress to adopt only laws for which Congress has authority under the Constitution to adopt; (2) a bill that would establish a new state statute that would reassert Connecticut’s rights under the Tenth Amendment, adopts a method for the legislature to declare any federal laws unconstitutional, and notifying Congress whenever the legislature declares a federal law to be unlawful; and (3) a bill identical to the bill in item #2 except that it omitted notification to Congress. Unfortunately, the Committee did not raise either of the bills for a public hearing.
We had hoped to use a particular legislative rule to “petition out” the bill or bills so that the committee would hold a public hearing on the bills, as well as on the resolution. Upon checking with legislative attorneys, State Rep. John Hetherington, a ranking member of the GAE Committee, and a supporter of the Tenth Amendment legislation, informed us that it will not be possible to “petition out” the bill or bills for a public hearing because these two measures were not officially drafted as proposed bills, nor could they be in this session when individual legislators were only allowed to officially draft proposed bills having to do with budgetary issues. Because the bills technically were never before the committee as “proposed bills”, there is nothing before the committee to “petition out” for a public hearing. The resolution and two bills merely were sent to the committee in the form of suggested concepts for the committee to raise for a public hearing. Since the committee only agreed to raise the resolution for a public hearing, there will be no public hearing on the bills. We will have a public hearing, however, on the resolution.
We still have no date for the public hearing, but it will take place sometime before the committee’s deadline for public hearings to be held, which is on March 12, 2010. As soon as we know the date for the hearing, we will let everyone know.
Before the public hearing takes place, we also hope to schedule an informal meeting of those interested in testifying at the hearing to answer any questions about that process.
For more information, contact:
We should all support this effort.
States can now not participate in a Government program, they just don’t get any MONEY. Think roads and drinking age for example. The legal drinking age was raised under a conservative Republican president.
In the history of this country, a state has always been able to interpose itself between an individual and the Federal Government. Think slavery.
If states can find a constitutional basis to nullify federal legislation, I’m for it. Otherwise, states are nothing more than chattel to the federal government and its citizens are slaves or serfs. I have a long list of federal laws that need nullification, especially “laws” illegally written by unelected federal bureaucrats.
States ping!
“But as the wave of enthusiasm grows, some academics have been waving their arms in an effort to slow the tide by saying that the official nullification of federal laws just isn’t legal.”
...the MSM always like to quote professors to bolster their claims...it’s natural because the academy is a powerbase of the Left...of course the professoriat lacking in common sense, otherwise tuition wouldn’t be spiraling out of control.
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.
James Madison wrote on the subject during the original nullificatin crisis:
A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding.
By the way, he doesn't say so in this letter, but you ought to know where the "final appeal" lies. It is with the Supreme Judiciary.
The true nature of the problem is that the Constitution obliterated federalism, and replaced it with supreme, consolidated national government. Madison's notion of "mixed sovereignty" has long since been proven a joke and a failure. What we have is supreme national sovereignty, as the supremacy clause makes clear.
The nullification crowd is on all fours with the 10th amendment crowd. The 10th amendment is a toothless joke. It merely begs the question. Allow me to demonstrate:
The question is whether a power is delegated to the national gubmint or not, right? Does the 10th amendment answer that question? Hell no. It merely says that whatever powers not delegated belong to the states and or the people.
It adds nothing. You are still left with the question: is it a national power or not. And under our system, who gets to decide? If it makes it through congress, and the president, the last resort is the SCOTUS. In other words, the national government decides for itself, the co-equal branches supposedly checking each other, when in fact they help each other.
The design is entirely flawed. The only other course is a convention or an amendment, and the big government federalists who created our system made those courses sufficiently difficult as to be non-starters. How many amendments have their been since the bill of rights that LIMIT national power? How many conventions have their been since 1787?
What do you suggest the States do if Socialist mandates are forced upon them?
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If nullification is illegal, then another option is secession. Is that illegal too? If so, what’s left?
Quite right, I well remember those issues and how various states were considering opting out of the 55mph speed limit imposed on them by the federal government. They changed their collective minds when the fed said, "go ahead and opt out but you will also opt out of receiving federal highway funds".
I thought of this again when certain states were considering opting out of socialized health care, yep you may opt out of receiving benefits but you may not opt out of the paying for them part.
For many years the Amish opted out of receiving S.S. benefits but still had to pay in. I understand that they are excluded from paying now. Good for them, they held to their principles.
“that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. ...”
Lincoln was correct about this.
Nullification can be found several times in American history as a response against perceived unconstitutional aggrandizement of federal power. The Alien and Sedition Acts leap to mind. Jefferson and Madison wrote the Ky and Va resolutions in response. Calhoun’s response to the “tariff of abominations” was nullification and interposition. Lincoln himself, refused to follow the dictates of the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He called the decision “erroneous”.
The Left does not like to use Lincoln and Jefferson except for their own ends.
Good answer.
I don’t agree that Real ID is federal mandate, but liberals LOVE to fight it. Any state is more than welcome to no use it. It just means that people in those states need some other form of ID if they want to be federally recognized (like a passport). Seems fair to me...each state can decide what’s best.
“If nullification is illegal, then another option is secession. Is that illegal too? If so, what’s left?”
It will be VERY INTERESTING to see if these states actually try to apply their nullification policies...it hard to think they will, as that would be seen (rightly or wrongly) as secession-lite.
Therefore, should the chief executive or the other branch of government or all branches together act to suspend The Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be cancelled and differed back to the granting power. That is..... the people. And I’ll conclude with this statement: Martial law shall NOT be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the bill of rights as inalienable.
================================================
FOX NEWS' JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO SAID IT BEST Free people enjoy the right to use nullification as a protective measure... to have their state legislatures act to prevent federal domination.
A legacy of USSC Taney's Dred Scott judicial activism, was that the ruling would lay the groundwork for the rights of states to nullify----to make null; to invalidate; to counteract the force or effectiveness of unconstitutional laws.
Nullification in US history, is a doctrine expounded by the advocates of states' rights. It held that states have the right to declare null and void any federal law that they deem unconstitutional.
Nullification is also a fundamental state right to prevent federal domination. States enjoyed the right to use nullification as a protective measure against unconstitutional federal laws by making them ineffective against their citizens. For example, Montana nullified federal gun laws.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE After Dred Scott, nullification had become a states' right tradition, and both the North and the South exercised it prior to 1861 SOURCE .http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ COPYRIGHT 2009 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.