WHAT IF THE STATES NULLIFY FEDGOV MANDATES?

VetsCoR ^ | 9/18/2009 | A Navy Vet

[A Navy Vet]

The DC politicos are pushing us Constitutionalists towards revolution. I'm not yet sure what form it will take. I'm hoping it will simply be about States' Rights (9th&10th Amendments) and enough States' willingness to nullify Fedgov mandates.

If enough States were to just tell the Fedgov to shove their socialist/Marxist programs, what would the DC politicians do? What would Obama do, given all his power?

I don't think for a moment that the White House would turn the military on any State that said NO to Obamacare or to Cap&Tax or any other socialist crap they're pushing.

So what would be the Fedgov's response? Cut off Federal funds? Well, some States like Texas, have refused some of those sovereignty killing funds, already. Many other States have legislation pending, or have already passed resolutions re-stating their sovereign rights. I believe it to be something like 34 States in total.

So what would be DC's recourse if the "Individual States" just said NO more and don't abide by the Fedgov mandates? I say NOTHING! This is not the era of the Civil War. The military and the National Guard would NOT kill their own family members in this day if ordered to do so. I don't believe it for a second.

The Fedgov would just have to back off. All those impotent corrupt self-serving politicos in Washington would have no other option other than to deny a State of Federal funds. Some States are willing to chance that and live with that.

States' rights is the way out of this mess. Read your Constitution. Everyone talks about the 10th Amendment, but it only re-enforces the 9th ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People").

So, there are two (2) Amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing the People their final authority. One speaks about the States AND the People and one to the People and thereby extension to their States, not to mention the original "intent" of limited federal government by the FF's in the Federalist Papers, essays, personal correspondence, publications, etc.

A MILLION or so people showing up in DC on September 12th was a great start, but it had NO focus. It was simply about "we don't different big stuff". We need to NOW give them Constitutional specifics. If the Marxists don't accept the original intent of the Constitution and States' rights and keep pushing their arguments for a "living document" and against States' sovereignty, then game on.

Until then, States' Rights should be seriously considered as the argument and rallying cry. It's obvious individual rights are no longer pertinent unless you exist within the PC spectrum.

[SeeSharp]

State’s “rights” without the acknowledged right of secession is just an illusion.

[guitarplayer1953]

I believe that a good place to start would be to have an amendment that would limit the number of times a person can run for the senate and the house local and federal. When these men and women get in politics and are there for 10-50 years they become entrenched and part of the problem. Then after that take away their retirement or tie it to Social Security that way they are not a drain on the national debt. Where I work we get 25 dollars for each year of employment and then we have to chose to have it paid out for 10 or 15 years. Not these golden retirements until the day they die.

[A Navy Vet]

"State’s “rights” without the acknowledged right of secession is just an illusion."

Secession ain't going to happen, but State nullification of Fedgov laws could happen, providing the State Governors have the fortitude and care more about the US Constitution than their political careers.

While we would think that to be the death of a Governor, there are many States that would love for their Governor to tell DC to pound sand. It's growing.

[plinyelder]

Clearly .. SOMETHING is going to have to be done.
These “Rulers” are at the point of saying .. “To hell with what the people want, we are going to do what WE WANT” anyway.

I don’t even know if there will ever be enough States telling the Feds to, “Shove It” because it all comes down to .. “What’s In It For ME”?

Corruption and out-right Greed is what has and is doing us, the regular folks in!

Until and Unless .. ‘WE The People’ rise up and Take our country back from the despots .. America as we know/knew it is finished!

[SeeSharp]

There are cases where the feds may choose to back off temporarily as a result of a state government's defiance. Such is the case with medical marijuana in California. But this is only temporary. Governments are immortal and thus patient. Eventually the feds will always regain the upper hand.

Sovereignty means the right to act as ultimate judge in all disputes, which means sovereignty is necessarily indivisible. True state's rights, the right to decide an issue with finality, is just another name for sovereignty.

[Question Liberal Authority]

A while back, LAX airport decided that it was too expensive to comply with federal mandates. The cost of compliance was higher than the money they were getting from the feds. So they tried to opt out. Congress passed a law saying they couldn't. Once you accept federal money, you must continue to accept federal money, whether you want it or not.

I imagine that any state's rejection of Obamacare would have a similar result. At best. Some states tried to do away with Federal mandates in 1861 and it ended badly.

[Mr_Moonlight]

10th and now 9th Amendment ~~~ PING ~~~

[momincombatboots]

You are kidding right? Name a state that can exist without federal dollars, maybe Alaska but just barely because they would have trouble with a population who wouldn’t be receiving the coveted dividends check.
This states rights kick is a nice message without any leverage. States claim they can withhold federal taxes, etc. Honestly, I think not! For example, the government would go after vulnerable populations, like those dependent on Medicare dollars, what would a state do? There are also lots of federal dollars in education, so old people and kids would suffer the most /sarc. Like it or not, the states are beholden to the govt and the Fed.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

There is a VERY SIMPLE way to effect this: repeal the 17th Amendment. No way do senators dependendent on state legislatures for their appointments turn around and put mandates on them. The Founding Fathers had federalism right and the 20th Century politicos were wrong again.

[dr_who]

Agreed. Even before the civil war, long before the federal government started expanding out of control, I don’t think the state nullification principal ever really stuck.

[A Navy Vet]

"Once you accept federal money, you must continue to accept federal money, whether you want it or not."

One of my points about State sovereignty.

"I imagine that any state's rejection of Obamacare would have a similar result. At best. Some states tried to do away with Federal mandates in 1861 and it ended badly."

Sorry guy or gal, you lost me there. That was a different time when everyone was ready to fight at the drop of the hat. This is now, and I say that the Fedgov won't have the stomach to send troops into any State that nullifies Fedgov directives.

If nothing else, and I hate to say it, but the punks in DC don't have cojones to push some 40 million gun owners who are just about fed up with their BS anyway.

Ain't gonna happen and there need be NO civil war or armed revolution against the Fedgov. All it will take, is enough States to say NO! We don't accept your Obamacare nor your Tax&Spend nor your other socialist/communist programs. We are keeping our taxes to ourselves. Good bye. Whatcha gonna do? Kill us? Ain't going to happen.

Again, think "jury nullification".

[dr_lew]

A MILLION or so people showing up in DC on September 12th was a great start, but it had NO focus.

A tenth this number, at the most. That's my judgement from the video and images I've seen.

"It seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them." - Machiavelli

[Zack Attack]

Here come those crazy right-wing “tenthers” again. :)

[rawcatslyentist]

>"I don't think for a moment that the White House would turn the military on any State that said NO"

Not "OUR" military, no. His "military", you better believe it!

[A Navy Vet]

"There are also lots of federal dollars in education, so old people and kids would suffer the most /sarc. Like it or not, the states are beholden to the govt and the Fed."

And so it's impossible to get out from beneath the Fedgov hold.?

Not sure if you've kept up, but there were a few Governors who fought against accepting Stimulus Money. They weren't able to hold their ground because the State legislative bodies wanted the bucks. But again, my point is that would be a jumping off point.

[DannyTN]

"Name a state that can exist without federal dollar"

That is in fact the problem. The FedGov can't order a state to implement Obamacare. That would be shot down in court.

But what the FedGov does, is to use matching funds or Federal dollars to incent states to follow it's whims. A state that refuses to follow the Fedgov lead still gets taxed, but then doesn't get any of the money back.

What you would need to fight this is enough states sue the Fedgov for the use of matching funds and federal incentives on issues reserved to the states. They would have to make the case that the Federal taxing/incentives have become so common/onerous on the states, that the Fedgov has effectively usurped state's rights.

[A Navy Vet]

"There is a VERY SIMPLE way to effect this: repeal the 17th Amendment. No way do senators dependendent on state legislatures for their appointments turn around and put mandates on them. The Founding Fathers had federalism right and the 20th Century politicos were wrong again."

I agree with you to a point, except, the average American doesn't understand the entricacies of your point. However, they ARE starting to understand the complete control that the Fedgov wants over their lives. That is a much bigger issue.

[Rashputin]

"If nothing else, and I hate to say it, but the punks in DC don't have cojones to push some 40 million gun owners who are just about fed up with their BS anyway."

I heard a lot of that same sort of stuff when some southern states were resisting the Civil Rights Act in the sixties. Both the Airborne and the National Guard responded when the Federal government told them to. And trust me, the majority of the Airborne troops who were serving at that time were from the southern states. Repeal the 17th, and put senate seats back into the hands of state legislatures. Anything else and you just have the Fed federalize the guard, do what they like, and tell you to sit on, it 40 million gun owners or not.

Regards

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The last time nullification was a live issue was in the nullification crisis of the early 1830's. In that contest the supporters of the federal union included the new Whig or National Republicans, including J. Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster and also Andrew Jackson. The supporters of nullification were led by southerners, including John C. Calhoun and westerners, notably Thomas Hart Benton.

It reach its peak in the Webster-Haynes debate between Webster and Calhoun's protege Charles Haynes. It is best remembered for Webster's phrase: 'Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable.'