"Are you really willing to not enforce the Supreme Law of the Land and not enfoce the Laws of the Union, and suppress insurrections in any such situation?"
Every ancestor of mine that fought in the unpleasantness of 1861-65 fought for the South, so no, I am going to say it is not the job of a state government to enforce an unpopular national law in that state. If Washington wants it enforced, they can send in their troops, and endure all the abuse, demagogery and everything else that goes along with it.
Nullification is a valid constitutional principle, and it's a shame Jackson and Lincoln made us get away from that.
It is not right that the federal government can go in and micromanage the affairs of a state.
There's also no guarantee that the state militia will comply. The state's have allowed the government to get away with abuses like these for more than 150 years but eventually, a breaking point is going to come.
And how popular do you think it would be for the federal government to come into say, the Southern or Western states and say, you're not doing what we want, so were in charge now. You could send in federal troops, but if they start pelting the troops with fruit, what do you do then. What if the Governor tells you, if I protect you with my law enforcement, I lose election so you're on your own sparky. What do you do then, put the state under martial law. You do that, then the governor is on national T.V playing the role of the victim, and soon you get sympathizers in other states.
Granted, this is all a hypothetical, but people are really getting sick and tired of federal courts saying, you've got to do this, do that, etc etc. And telling state governments that they are going to have to do the bidding of the national Treasury Department (presumably so people deflect their anger away from the DOT), you really think they are going to be thrilled to go along with something like that.
But, to reiterate, I do believe in nullification.
Every ancestor of mine that fought in the unpleasantness of 1861-65 fought for the South, so no, I am going to say it is not the job of a state government to enforce an unpopular national law in that state.
Get over it, that one was fought and lost.
What you have to say about it is of little import on such issues, what the Constitution has to say about it however is of great matter.
Nullification is a valid constitutional principle, and it's a shame Jackson and Lincoln made us get away from that.
Nullification is for jurys of one's peers in court proceedings, not government officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, and Laws of the Land.
It is not right that the federal government can go in and micromanage the affairs of a state.
Strange I don't see collecting a national tax as micromanaging anything. It is however a very definite authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes and make the laws necessary and proper to the execution of that authority.
There's also no guarantee that the state militia will comply. The state's have allowed the government to get away with abuses like these for more than 150 years but eventually, a breaking point is going to come.
Give you a clue, federal government doesn't use the militias of the state in default to correct such controversies.
And how popular do you think it would be for the federal government to come into say, the Southern or Western states and say, you're not doing what we want, so were in charge now.
Where there is an agreement by the state to act as an agent, with a full option to not do so? LOL. Get real.
Granted, this is all a hypothetical,
Indeed it is, and has little to do with the specific legislation of discussion. As the NRST agreement is bilateral with the state able to pull out anytime it wishes turning administration over to either a third party, or to the U.S. Treasury.
but people are really getting sick and tired of federal courts saying, you've got to do this, do that, etc etc.
I suppose that people violating laws would be sick and tired of the courts telling them they must abide by the law. So? We are talking here about clear authority under the Constitution not some pre-numbra or inferred magic right that never existed.
And telling state governments that they are going to have to do the bidding of the national Treasury Department
Nice hyperbole, but not on point as the states enter into voluntary agreements with the Treasury to administer a clearly constitutional national tax law. Sorry, just doesn't fly for the situation.
(presumably so people deflect their anger away from the DOT),
I would suggest you get rid of what ever it is you are smoking, fantasy is creeping in.
you really think they are going to be thrilled to go along with something like that.
State's option as to whether they, another state, or the U.S. Treasury administers the NRST in that state. Sorry thrilled or not people pay taxes, the choice is only in who administers the national tax system in the specific instance.
But, to reiterate, I do believe in nullification
So do I, in a court room by jury of peers.