Posted on 02/03/2011 9:01:02 PM PST by ForGod'sSake
IL state workers do that.
My wife doesn’t pay SS on her teachers salary. Of course, that money is gone.
In Cooper v. Aaron the SCOTUS rejected nullification by the states.
As a Canadian I have wondered how the USA could believe that the constitution envisioned ALL interpretation could turn on the views of politically appointed non-elected Justice. In this case Kennedy would be the deciding vote.
“In Cooper v. Aaron the SCOTUS rejected nullification by the states.”
And in 1851, SCOTUS affirmed the Fugutive Slave Act. We all know how that turned out.
What if the President were to claim that same authority?
What if Congress were to claim that same authority?
The fact is, Congress DOES have the ability to limit the jurisdiction of the Courts. That is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
My point is only that we should not allow the institution of the Court, itself, to tell us the limits on the power that institution might or might not have.
Washington State has simply doubled down on the Obamacare.
Washington is has the third largest deficit in the country, as a percentage of it’s total budget. One of the suggestions by the governor was to cut health care benefits to illegals and low income wage earners who have no employer paid health care.
Yesterday, they announced that this was off the table because Obamacare would pick up the costs in 2014.
thank you
sfl
We fought a nasty little war over it in fact.
Nullification is the approach the pro-life movement ought to have adopted, on January 23, 1973. Instead, years and years and years were wasted on a Human Life Amendment—essentially conceding that the Supreme Court’s “interpretation” of the Constitution had some semblance of a suggestion of a wisp of a hint of an emanation of a penumbra of a basis in the text of the Constitution—that was never a possibility.
When government hands down a command to commit a crime, the morally and Constitutionally sound reponse is Nullification. The Supreme Court, for the past 38 years, has commanded the governors and legislatures of the states to commit the crime of excluding a class of human beings from those whose lives are protected by law and by the police power of the state. I.e., the crime of deadly, unjust discrimination.
Nullification is the approach the pro-life movement ought to have adopted, on January 23, 1973. Instead, years and years and years were wasted on a Human Life Amendment—essentially conceding that the Supreme Court’s “interpretation” of the Constitution had some semblance of a suggestion of a wisp of a hint of an emanation of a penumbra of a basis in the text of the Constitution—that was never a possibility.
When government hands down a command to commit a crime, the morally and Constitutionally sound response is Nullification. The Supreme Court, for the past 38 years, has commanded the governors and legislatures of the states to commit the crime of excluding a class of human beings from those whose lives are protected by law and by the police power of the state. I.e., the crime of deadly, unjust discrimination.
You got me friend, but my guess would be the courts would probably find a way to deny any standing for the proles. JMO of course. Maybe some FR legel eagles will step forward and offer an opinion.
Is it your opinion the SCOTUS is infallible? Or that it's inconceivable they could build a house of judicial incongruities by setting bad precedent upon bad precedent? That's the libtard way you know. The judiciary is one leg of the three legged stool that is the feral government, notwithstanding what Chuckie Schumer has to say about it. Is there the potential for conflicts of interest to develop between the federal stool(heh, a pun) and the ones who created it; the states and the people? If you accept that premise, just which side do you think the federal courts will most likely join with?
As the creators of the feral government, We The People and The States have an obligation and a duty to keep the feral government on course don't we? Can we rely on one branch of the feral government to protect our rights completely and at all times? Of course not. The founders realized this and had numerous discussions about it. Their thoughts generally were that the states in particular had the wherewithal to keep the federal beast at bay. One thing the Founders may not have foreseen was the income tax which basically allows the federales to play their own misbegotten version of Robin Hood and has allowed them to beget all manner of malfeasance.
So, it's up to us AND what's left of the considerable resources of the states to hit the reset button. You can rely on the courts entirely if you want to but it has the effect of jeopardizing my freedoms. That's not a good thing for the rest of us.
You're welcome!
GREAT points! You’ve got to admit, our feral government at all levels and branches have succeeded in laying the foundation of their perceived omnipotence. I pray WE will present them an epiphany when, and if, we are able to have a come to Jesus meeting with them. They have crapped on us long enough.
Frighteningly so, unfortunately.
We are being legalesed to death by a system created and maintained by our would be masters. A maze built by and for Rats so they would be the only ones able to navigate within it effectively. They have led many to believe the "law", and coincidentally our Constitution, are just too complicated for mere working stiffs. We will have to change that perception and destroy the maze as we rebuild our republic.
Thanks for your reply.
Only in the sense that they must judge it concerning the particular cases in front of them.
Constitutionally, they were never granted the veto. That is reserved to the Executive.
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.