Posted on 07/03/2015 8:47:57 AM PDT by B Knotts
Following last week’s controversial U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and gay marriage, voters believe more strongly that individual states should have the right to turn their backs on the federal courts.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
...
Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
“If the states would quit sucking the federal tit then FedGov’s leverage would dissolve.”
Easyer said than done, a huge share of the State’s tax payer dollars are taken by Washington as a means of bribing the State and its people into compliance with Federal edicts while also allegedly providing for countless dependence. in everything from healthcare, welfare, to education.
No State can afford to both pay for theses services thous federal taxes and pay for their own copy to replace them in State Taxes.
Ending the services and taxation to pay for them from Washington is ultimately what is required. I suspect the now lawless court could with the ‘proper persuasion’ be convened to do that for us.
This would thus accomplish two ends, the decentralization of authority by way of the leftest part of people losing respect for the Federal injustice system on domestic matters and the decentralization practical monetary authority from Washington to the State.
_______________________________________________________
This is the statement that has me worried....what if your representative or senator doesn't agree with you, or if your representative or senator is beholding to a lobbyists or is being blackmailed...then what????
My point is that opinions on state led SC nullification very often are seen through a prism of (a) issues the individual cares about and (b) current events.
While I may disagree with SCOTUS on some decisions as matters of law, both recent and historical, I also caution that the law of unintended consequences is universal.
.
It was mentioned that one may live in any state we choose. A perfect example.
SCOTUS rulings have shaped policy regarding how retirement benefits are taxed, which has prevented some states from effectively holding pensioners hostage via taxes. Further, the right to move freely between and among the states is a constitutional principal. What would keep a state from imposing an exit tax? A SCOTUS ruling to the contrary of such a law or policy could simply be ignored by the state in question.
.
It’s a dicey proposition with significant potential for state / federal confrontation.
Bah! It was tried in the South.
Doesn’t work.
Lots of people did. 2008 merely accelerated the process
wouldn’t the left blow a gasket if states banded together to DEFY the federal government AND the states used the rebel flag as their symbol of independence?
there was a tiem hwne it did- States banded together and defied the government and forced the government to back down because it was obvious that there was no way for the federal government to enforce their corrupt law- Can’t remember now what that law was- but states did defeat it by allying themselves together
50% of GOP voters believe the states should ignore the federal laws. It could be 100% of GOP voters and it wouldn’t make any difference. The republicans are big government democrats.
If retirement savings are planned responsibility it should be a pot of money that you take with you from State to state like any other property.
No State should have the practical authority to do otherwise having not possession of the property.
The real key to maintaining interstate liberty is the very fact that States are not abridged to always respect the laws and demands of other states, particularly when those laws seem only designed to disadvantageous other states or rob people of their ability to flee with their resources.
It is thus much easier thing for Congress to Abolish barriers to interstate trade than to establish domestic order. One act requires a standing intrastate army the other simply requires that they occasionally take sides between two disputing states.
If on the other hand people decide to give their state Government full possession and control of their retirement plan that is no different than investing in the judgement of that Government.
[[Easyer said than done, a huge share of the State’s tax payer dollars are taken by Washington as a means of bribing the State and its people into compliance with Federal edicts while also allegedly providing for countless dependence]]
True, but then states COULD pass laws making federal taxes illegal- Denying the federal government of their source3 of income- We ‘could’ defeat federal laws easily enough IF enough states agreed to stand together
Eventually. In the interim, stay armed my FRiend.
Bingo
The powers that are not delegated to the Federal government is reserved to the states and “ the people “.
The Federal government has no rights, but rather as originally intended “ servants “ to the people.
If the people interpreted the Tax Code in the same loose way that the courts interpret the constitution, nobody would ever have to pay a dime in taxes.
“50% of GOP voters believe the states should ignore the federal laws. It could be 100% of GOP voters and it wouldn’t make any difference. The republicans are big government democrats.”
That is not true, only RINO’s are that way, and we can beat the RINO’s as we have on many occasions. We simply need the corsage to stand our ground and pick good fights in which to humiliate the lawless authority of Washington.
This is a good Start but we need to spread the message about the corruption of Federal employees and the right and necessity of nullification as well as the inherent superiority of State level judgement due to the ability to vote with our feet.
We do this we will not only get a large majority of Republicans but many more democrats and independence as well to feel both comfortable with a decentralized state that results from standing up to the court and feel that liberty cannot be trusted in the hands of a few federal employees in black robes.
We can win this war, and uses their abuses to destroy Washington!
“True, but then states COULD pass laws making federal taxes illegal- Denying the federal government of their source3 of income- We ‘could’ defeat federal laws easily enough IF enough states agreed to stand together”
Pass laws yes, but that would provoke a military response by the Federal Government that no state or existing collation of states can win at this time.
We need to act more indirectly and intelligently, by using Washington’s own corruption to bring them down while we build support for nullification to destroy their effective centralized authority over domestic matters.
We the people ALLOWED government to take money from us and to call it taxes- We ALLOWED them to keep raising those taxes with the understanding that it takes a lot of money to run a government- but there is NOTHING to state that we must continue to ALLOW them to both take more and more money from us AND to saddle us with unconstitutional laws and violations to our rights-
Think of it this way- someone comes up to you and demands that you pay them ‘protection money’ You think it over, and decide the benefits are worth it, and you AGREE to do so (You still have a choice- you can say no) Then that person begins demanding more and more- and threatening you if you refuse (You STILL have the CHOICE to say no) Then they begin forcing you to buy their goods only, and forcing you to violate you conscience and religious convictions, and threatening to throw you in some dungeon if you don’t
You can do one of two things, You can REFUSE to ALLOW them to keep taking money from you and form alliances with other ABUSED peoples, OR you can comply and feel as though you have no choice- thinking ‘well it’s the law- therefore there is no choice’
I ask, is it legal for people in power to keep taking more and more money from it’s citizens AND to require them to violate their consciences and religious beliefs? Who would make up such laws? Only criminals would- Thieves, Abusers would
But of course we will all comply because there isn’t a large enough majority who will stand together against an abusive govenrment
“If the people interpreted the Tax Code in the same loose way that the courts interpret the constitution, nobody would ever have to pay a dime in taxes.”
Imagine a Republican President to do like Obama and order the IRS to hold such ‘interpretations’?
When we stop caring about the Federal leviathan we find there are quite a few ways to bring it down particularly given the infinite number of powers Obama and his lawless court have now introduced.
But we unlike the left have to think about the future and where we will restore order and that my friend should be at the state level where our citizen can vote to retain their rights with their feet whenever their ballot fails.
We discredit and destroy the power of Washington we must be careful to reinforce that power in our States, so that they may take over. Not by direct enforcement so much as by encouragement and deliberately failed resistances.(order agents to retreat rather than confront)
[[Pass laws yes, but that would provoke a military response by the Federal Government that no state or existing collation of states can win at this time.]]
Yeah? And if the great people of this country saw their government attacking it’s own citizens, I believe we would then finally come together to fight to protect our freedoms- Don’t forget, people were absolutely pissed over Kent State- and over Waco- but if there was a larger action against the people, the people would finally get the idea that big government has gotten WAY too out of control
But yes, let’s try legal means first- if possible- but I’m NOT seeing anyone in government willing to do anything- besides Ted-
Well, I live in California. Everything we the people of this state have tried to do to save this state (prop 187, Prop 8) has been overturned by our state courts and the federal courts. We now live in a third world hell hole governed by brain dead hippies and sexual perverts.
Here it is all you folks replying to Rasmussen's poll takers:
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.
What does that even mean? Have you, poll answerer, even read this?
In light of this actually being part of our Constitution, one that several original colonies wouldn't even ratify UNTIL these words were in it, what do you think?
Has the federal government abided by it?
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.