Well, if the judges are appointed by a tyrannical President, and approved by a supine Congress, then you get a total tyranny, albeit one that takes time (a couple of terms) to get installed, given the average life expectancy of the judges.
The concept of nullification has been around since the founding. Mr Jefferson and Mr Madison wrote the Virginia and Kentucky resolution which nullified Mr Adam’s Sedition Act. So, if Mr’s Jefferson and Madison thought the process to be constitutional, who are we to argue?
Keep in mind that a federal court will probably never grant power back to the states since the concept of incorporation became prevalent. And hey, why give power back when you can use it as a huge baseball bat to beat the peasantry over the head at every turn?
So, based on the over whelming disadvantage that we are placed in by our “federal overlords,” we need some strong governors and state legislatures to take up the nullification process and begin whittling the general gov’t down to size (see enumerated powers in that little document known as “The Constitution of the United States of America”).
May The God of Heaven save the good people of the Untied States of America and may He judge in Holy Righteousness those who have led us into slavery.
So it seems that the only person the author favors engaging in nullification is this president. Through his refusal to enforce settled immigration law, to his defiant reversal of other laws through use of a phone and a pen, this president is an habitual nullifier. Only those who disfavor homosexual “marriage” are out of line.
Could'a fooled me!
In the fwiw department.
5.56mm
When judges write law what’s the point of a legislature? Why do we need to waste the money and effort? What is the point of voting, it means nothing if a judge says it means nothing. We are not a republic, we are not even a democracy at this point, more a fascist oligarchy.
"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes." - Abraham Lincoln"[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal." - Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution, via the states and the people, DELEGATES certain ENUMERATED powers to the federal government. The basic presumption of the Constitution is if it's not a power delegated by the Constitution, then it doesn't belong to the feds. Whatever rights and powers the Constitution does NOT delegate to the feds or prohibit from the states or individuals, is retained by the states and the people. This is confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which among many other Constitutional texts and understandings, the feds have pushed aside.
The Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Sec2) says that the Constitution and all U.S. laws MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, are the Law of the Land. The Constitution does not support unconstitutional federal laws or acts.
Taken together, the Supremacy Clause and the presumptions of the Constitution as confirmed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments supports state supremacy and the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts and decisions.
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. The Tenth Amendment.
State nullification of unconstitutional federal acts is simply the Tenth Amendment in action. It's time.
While this could be de facto nullification, it would likely not be called that, if for no other reason than to avoid the historical comparisons, and existing precedent.
Likely the argument would be both that incremental unconstitutionality is still unconstitutional, even if its parts had been declared constitutional over time; and that judicial *stare decisis* (Stare decisis et non quieta movere: “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed”) aka judicial precedent, *also* cannot produce unconstitutional decisions based on previously declared constitutional parts.
In short, that the verbatim constitution overrules executive, legislative, and judicial misinterpretation, interpolation, and excessive extrapolation.
The especially applies to previous cherry picking of minor clauses in the constitution, then using them to overrule the greater principles in the document.
The most abused of these minor clauses being the Interstate Commerce clause abused by FDR; and the General Welfare clause abused by LBJ. The two together essentially overruling the constitution, and building a corrupt palace on a pile of garbage.
“One thing I am angry about, though, Hugh, is this notion of judicial supremacy, where if the courts make a decision, I hear governors and even some aspirants to the presidency say well, that’s settled, and it’s the law of the land. No, it isn’t the law of the land. Constitutionally, the courts cannot make a law. They can interpret one.” Mike Huckabee
This is why, as a social/moral conservative, I am currently backing Mike Huckabee. He is a real social/moral conservative, and won’t be backed down. Is he as fiscally conservative (and other issues) as many on this forum demand...probably not. However, to me, a person that has a PRIMARY concern is social/moral issues, he currently is the best in the running. BTW - I don’t care if libertarians (libertines) on this forum accuse him of being a “nanny-stater.”
Surprise, surprise.