Posted on 02/03/2011 9:01:02 PM PST by ForGod'sSake
Idaho, the first state to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, has announced plans to resort to an obscure 18th century legal remedy that recognizes a state’s right to nullify any federal law that the state has deemed unconstitutional.
The doctrine, known as nullification, has its roots in the brand of governance practiced by the nation’s founding fathers. It was used as early as 1799 by then-law professor Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France that
nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts … is the rightful remedy.
As a legal theory, nullification is grounded in the assumption that states, and not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter in cases where Congress and the president have “run amok.”
In Idaho, use of the doctrine to invalidate the health care reform bill is being championed by both state Sen. Monty Pearce and Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter speech, who recently told Idaho residents, “we are actively exploring all our options — including nullification.” Pearce plans to introduce a nullification bill in the state legislature early next week.
Idaho is not the only state considering nullification as a remedy. Six others, including Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming, are also considering bills that would in essence nullify the president’s signature on the reform law.
Pearce, who has expressed optimism that the law will pass, becoming the law of the land in Idaho, is quoted by FOX as having saud:
There are now 27 states that are in on the lawsuit against Obamacare. What if those 27 states do the same thing we do with nullification? It’s a killer.
One potential fly in the ointment for Idaho and other states considering nullification is the 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming that federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.” If nothing else, these moves will result in some interesting legal battles
Obscure? Wow.
Nullification basically dominated American politics from 1800 to the civil war.
Calhoun was the pre-eminent proponent.
Add IOWA to the list. ;^)
To an average Joe like myself, that decision appears to violate the 10th amendment. I'd be interested to read a piece on that decision written by a real Constitutional scholar.
I like that. Was it deliberate?
Nullification basically dominated American politics from 1800 to the civil war.
Calhoun was the pre-eminent proponent.
That war allowed the “Union” to do away with a LOT of the States rights and privileges. It’s time the States and the People started reclaiming them — in NO uncertain terms!
Ever since the federales learned to keep the states at bay with extortion and bribes using OUR tax dollars the concept has fallen into disuse. The states can once again stand in the breach for us if they but choose to do so. Whether they exercise it or not, they have a great deal of stroke under our "original" Constitution.
I wonder if some states could nullify Social Security and replace it with their own program with the same withholding percentage set to go into effect in 24 months.
The withholdings could just go into private accounts that hold Treasuries; citizen just gets a payment stream starting at 65 until their account is empty, remainder goes to a named beneficiary or estate like life insurance. An insurer could be contracted to administer the program.
How does that work, does the Justice Dept have to sue the state that nullified to get into the courts if no one else has standing ?
The Feds might actually like the idea at this point because they’d be buying Treasuries.
Assumption?? How can it be otherwise? How many times will the feds be told they're overstepping their bounds by a court that works for them? Second, the fed is a creation of the states and works for them. How can the feds possibly possess so much power that those who gave them that power cannot override them?
Hmmm. I guess you could say WBTS:States::WOD:Average Joe.
Which is logical. *If* the Constitution explicitly gives a power to the Feds, then it should be supreme.
But, if it does not, and the Feds try to assume that power, as in CommieCare, it would seem nullification is legal and justified in order to *uphold* the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
If they buy T-Bills, the CITIZENS will sue.
The union is a union of states, not people. Maybe I’m unusual, but nullification is an essential part of a federal system.
I’m rather astonished that the concept is considered to be obscure when the bloodiest war on American soil was fought over the issue.
I'm not so sure I'd rely much on the current crop of Constitutional scholars given what passes for scholars these days. The key point in that particular statement IMHO hinges on the constitutionality of any given law. If the law fits within the framework of Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution, there's little doubt it would be the supreme law of the land. When a law falls outside of the enumerated powers, it is void and of no effect. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers would probably be a good starting point to see what some of the Founders thoughts on it were.
Afraid so. I've been using it for a couple of years or so since starting a 10th Amendment ping list. Descriptive, no?
You do realize, of course, that this is a pathetic joke. The "nullification act" was totally discredited during the Jackson era (1832) and never raised from the dead again. There is no such thing as " nullification" by the states, at least since the Civil War. Good luck with that, if you want to fight it all over again.
I haven't studied the SS situation enough to know if there's ANY way to fix it. The idiots we sent to DC to run this railroad have misappropriated and mismanaged the "trust" fund til there's nothing in it and hasn't been for years. It has been their private slush fund to tap as needed for favors and votes. Damn their hides!
All excellent points of course. You must have been following along. ;^)
Whether you are "unusual" is up to you and your therapist but you are way off course and barking up the wrong tree with this fanciful "nullification" nonsense. It went down the drain in the 1830's.
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.