Posted on 02/03/2011 9:01:02 PM PST by ForGod'sSake
If TX goes than so do I.
How so?
JMO but I think you've oversimplified the argument. The give and take of governance, especially under our form of federalsim is bound to generate conflicts from time to time. Perfection is not something we will achieve on this earth. Tyrants are always with us. They will always do what tyrants do. How they are stopped is the subject of centuries of debate. They haven't been stopped yet, only sent to their corners for a while waiting for the next opportunity. The group that won the last round may not be the group that wins the next one.
“If TX goes than so do I”
________________________________________________________________________________________
It’s so bad now that nothing is beyond the realm of possibility. Including that.
Thoughts?Tenth Amendment FAQ
Tenth AmendmentQ1: What does the Tenth Amendment Say?
A1: 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.
Q2: What does the Tenth Amendment Mean?
A2: This amendment is a rule of construction. It tells us how to interpret the remainder of the Constitution. Namely, any power which is not granted to the federal government in the constitution may only be executed by the states or by the people.
Nullification Questions
Q3: How can you support nullification when the supremacy clause says that the federal government is supreme?
A3: The supremacy clause doesnt say that! Clause 2 of Article 6, known as the supremacy clause, 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
As it pertains to nullification, the key section of that clause is the phrase, in Pursuance thereof;. Laws of the United states which shall be made in Pursuance of the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land. Further, Judges in every state are bound by the Constitution. When someone tells you that an unconstitutional law is supreme because of the supremacy clause, they are mistaken. The supremacy clause makes the Tenth Amendment supreme over laws not made in pursuance of the Constitution.
Q4: How can you support nullification when nullification was used to support slavery? Is this because we have our first black President? This is just stealth racism, right?
A4: No. Were not racist. The Tenth Amendment Center was founded in 2006, when we did not yet have a black President. In fact, nullification was used by the northern states to resist slavery (see here ). The Tenth Amendment is important because our Constitutional system is currently out of balance. In addition to the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government checking each other, the ratifiers of the Constitution also expected the state and federal governments to serve as checks against each other. As James Madison wrote, in Federalist 51,
First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.
Because the states have not been performing this job, Madisons double security is not functioning to protect us. There can only be one end to a path of unlimited centralization of power.
Q5: Dont you know that nullification will lead to chaos? Well have a patchwork of laws!
A5: No, and yes. Nullification actually leads to stability. There isnt really a short answer to this one, but see here and here. If the states choose to nullify, this introduces a competitive market into the interpretation of law. The laws which survive will be the ones that most states and the Supreme Court all agree are Constitutional.
A patchwork of laws is a good thing, not a bad one. One size rarely fits all. What is good law for Pennsylvanians may be bad law for Californians, or Iowans. Carry the standardization of laws to its logical extreme and what do you get? One law for the entire world. At any time, were moving towards liberty or away from it. Nullification moves us towards freedom.
Q6: The Supreme Court decide which laws are Unconstitutional. How can you propose to nullify a law which hasnt been vetted by the Supreme Court?
A6 Yes, the Supreme Court does decide which laws are Unconstitutional. And so should the Congress and the President and each and every one of the states. Article I, Section X of the Constitution lists the powers which are prohibited to the states,
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
As you can see, interpreting the Constitution is not among the prohibited powers.
Q7: That question was answered by the Civil War, wasnt it?
A7 You cant answer a question of conscience through the use of force. Yes, an earlier generation of Americans fought a brutal war (in part) over slavery. The only question that answered was whether the north or the south had the larger military capacity and resolve. If you want to be technical, the nullifiers from the north actually won that war, but that still doesnt prove anything. The reason nullification is just and correct is that our Constitution was designed with the idea in mind that the state and federal governments would provide a double-security for our liberties. Without nullification, our system is out of balance and our liberties are unprotected. This simple truth is unaffected by the results of the Civil War.
Probably a pessimist, like myself.
As if Cooper v. Aaron never happened?
While some people leave their hopes in the hands of unelected, unaccountable, politically-connected lawyers that make up the federal judiciary, lawmakers in eleven states have taken steps to bypass Washington D.C. completely and take matters into their own hands.
The latest? South Dakota. Introduced by Representatives Hubbel, Jensen, Liss, and Nelson (Stace) and Senators Begalkaand Lederman is House Bill 1165 (HB1165), the National Health Care Nullification Act. (h/t Chris Stevens)
It states, in part:
The Legislature find that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590; Pub. L. No. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872; Pub. L. No. 111-152) is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the true meaning and intent of the United States Constitution, and further finds that such law is invalid in this state, may not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered null and void and of no effect in this state
The bill also establishes penalties, including fines and jail time, for any agent seeking to enforce the federal health care bill within the states borders:
No official, agent, or employee of the United States government nor any employee of any entity providing services to the United States government may enforce or attempt to enforce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590; Pub. L. No. 111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872; Pub. L. No. 111-152) or any order, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States government established in connection with that Act. A violation of this section is a Class 5 felony
State legislators in Maine, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Wyoming have already introduced similar bills.
In 2007, 2 years after the Bush administration and the republican congress gave us the unconstitutional Real ID act, states like Maine and New Hampshire began the process of passing resolutions and laws rejecting the federal law. Now, nearly 25 states have gotten on board with the nullification efforts led by democrats and the ACLU and the result? The law is virtually null and void in most of the country.
Today, less than a year after the Affordable care act already 7 states have passed Health Care Freedom Acts, rejecting the mandates in the federal law. Those states are focusing primarily on a strategy of trying to win in federal court to affirm their state laws.
But introduction of the nullification act in eleven states already (sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect a number of other states do the same this year) indicate that theres a growing segment of the population that is looking to exercise their rights in their states whether Congress or the federal courts want to give them permission to or not.
Will these bills go anywhere? Only time will tell. But, whether they do or not, there is much to be learned from the left-wing nullification efforts of the last few years and beyond. Whether its 25 states saying no to Real ID, or 15 states rejecting federal laws on marijuana theres a blueprint. When enough people say no to federal laws, and enough states back them up by passing laws to do the same theres not much that Washington D.C. can do about it.
*******
CLICK HERE to view the TACs Health Care Nullification Act legislative tracking page.
CLICK HERE to view the full text of TACs model legislation the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. Please send it to your state reps and senators for introduction in your state today!
Is it anything like Dingell-Norwood???
As in you don't believe it can work? Don't like the idea? Have you ever looked into the kerfuffle that was Real ID. A recent overreach by the feral government that the states let be known they wanted no part of. It died, quietly, with little fanfare. Odinga and his politburo are going to have to be led by the hand to a come to Jesus meeting before they will get the message. If they are to get it at all. What do you suggest as an alternative?
Outstanding post. Thank you for it!!!
If they can get KA on board, the US will be split in two.
You’re welcome! A good resource for countering some of the negative stuff even here on FR.
Good explanation.
KA? Scratching head...
Idaho
Six others, including Maine,
Montana,
Oregon,
Nebraska,
Texas
and Wyoming, are also considering bills that would in essence nullify the presidents signature on the reform law.
It’s similar to the slow bleed that the Democrats stared a while ago. Take back the country one step at a time. Only problem is that takes a while. I really don’t believe the Commies will give up all that they’ve gained without initiating CWII.
They do control the media, and will use it to get all those on the left of politics into a final frenzy, and would probably tell them to burn everything down.
They’re just waiting for a Reichstag moment.
I think that's a possibility but depending on where they choose to act up, it might not last long. There are places in this country where folks just won't tolerate any nonsense like that. You and I both know there are those just waiting for an excuse to open up on anyone they feel are threatening their way of life. I don't think odinga even knows how it would end, and probably could care less. One of his goals may in fact be to start the shooting. I'm sure he thinks he has a solution for such a "crisis" but when the dust settles he may discover he didn't know anything about Americans at all.
In light of Judge Vinson’s ruling, and awaiting the Supreme Court affirmation or overturn of his decision, Florida (and the other 25 plaintiffs, eventually) has decided to stop any spending. Question: In a state that supports DeathCare (i.e., Delaware), does an individual citizen have standing to sue the state and force them not to spend any money?
Little Biden is Delaware AG and will file a brief to have the law declared constitutional. Now, that would be a kick in the teeth if Delaware had to stop.
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.