Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
An unexpected feature of this year's gubernatorial race is the revival of certain political notions identified with early American history. Republican candidate Debra Medina in particular has made nullification a major aspect of her campaign, both in her two debates with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry and on her Web site, which includes, under the label "Restore Sovereignty," the message that the U.S. Constitution "divides power between the federal and state governments and ultimately reserves final authority for the people themselves. Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution."
She does not specify the mechanism by which nullification would take place, but, obviously, she appears to believe that the legal authority to nullify is unquestionable, making it only a question of political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
You won’t have to move back, but if you want to we will welcome you.
We are going to take the whole thing back and pursue the Commies within to the very gates of Hell, on their way home.
I assume you mean #66. Sorry, I don't have time to track down the book and read it before responding. I'll try and wing it.
The Alien and Sedition Acts died a well deserved death when Jefferson was elected. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if they had been ruled on by a Marshall Supreme Court. My expectation is that they would have been struck down.
I don't disagree with Jefferson's belief that the acts were gross violations of the First Amendment. I disagree that it was the right of the states to decide that.
Declaration of Independence, 1776
Please note that the above is not suggesting a "revolutionary" right but rather an intrinsic right of free men!
So an armed home invader may have a valid point? Wow.
The Feds operating beyond their limited, enumerated powers to overrun those who entrusted those powers to them are indeed home invaders. And they are certainly armed.
And here you are to play the role of smarmy defense lawyer hell bent on springing them on some technicality some they may continue their crime spree.
Could troublesome territories be ostracized into other states? For example give Chicago to Wisconsin. Or Los Angeles to Alaska.
The Feds have Military bases all over the world.
One in the Country of TEXAS is not unworkable.
Plus we have a terrorist living openly in Houston and NO one is doing anything about it.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4004172/is-this-man-a-moderate
So, you think those are the people who will be the first to take up arms to stand against a tyrant should it become the choice of last resort? C'mon.
Inalienable or unalienable?
Very good points,
The Mechanism for any vague nullification of an as of yet unmentioned Federal law, would have to take the form of the nullification participation by Multiple States.
I.E., it would not be just Texas. Misery loves company.
The Health Care “attempt” with its long fuse of “not effective until 2012” (don’t worry be happy) would give 50 states a long timeline to react violently with “State rights” laws (Legal or NOT). After all, the Courts move slowly when laws are reversed.
The Obama desperation of TAX now and implement later was an Assumption that Obama RULED the USA as a King, that once he passed an edict, Congress “would make it so, number one”.
So Perry and Texas, “Threatened” with a most excellent Idea for fighting Maxist laws passed in a hurry, and it helped slow down the Marxists and get cheers at the Tea Parties, but it was just a bluff, a threat, and the MSM picked it up (as designed) and spread the “ridiculous” threat.
MSM can be manipulated, and Texans can threaten DC, if DC threatens Texas.
John Dewey and his ilk began this process one hundred years ago with a determined goal in mind; we would do well to create an opposing force with equal determination to oppose it.
I’m sure this is a captain obvious statement, but, it seems plain to me that the states not only have the Constitutional right, but the duty to refuse to obey un-Constitutional laws or actions taken by the federal government. This is not secession. It is not required.
I find the situation similar to being given an order in the military that violates the military code of conduct. The soldier is not required to follow that kind of order. He/she may get into lots of trouble and have to defend themselves in court, but they do not have to be “out of the military” in order to refuse to obey.
The question will remain - does the particular state refusing to follow a specific federal law on the basis of nullification have the political and moral will to follow it through to the end? I hope the answer is “yes”.
From the article,before its absurd conclusion(perhaps 49 states,lets give California to China to eliminate debt).
“But, of course, slavery is no longer the issue of the hour in American politics, and we have the luxury, so to speak, of being able to return to more basic issues of constitutional theory (and potential practice).”
I beg to differ but taxes,not willingly rendered,are most assuredly a form of slavery.
If my understanding is correct it is that inalienable is a legal term that simply means not subject to change or retraction, whereas unalienable which is used in the declaration means God given, endowed by our creator and thus inviolate under any circumstance. Perhaps some one who has breached the subject can enlighten us as to the nuanced differences.
>>>So, you think those are the people who will be the first to take up arms to stand against a tyrant should it become the choice of last resort? C’mon.
Yes, but only in their fantasy worlds. Red Dawn is a wonderful film, but some seem to be losing the ability to differentiate movies and real life. Assuming they ever could.
Agreed...and the columnist disagreed with her.
And that means she has never actually read the Constitution or skipped right past Article VI.
No...it means that you're assuming the Bill of Rights doesn't exist. Article VI is limited to only the powers that the federal government actually is allowed, which is very limited and is granted at the will of The People through The States.
And as James Madison wrote: "But whilst the Constitutional compact remains undissolved, it must be executed according to the forms and provisions specified in the compact." This was written directly in the nullification correspondence with Daniel Webster and can't be ignored. And it is preposterous to suggest that the government outlined by the compact can have primacy of definition (i.e., self-definition) over those who executed the compact. That's like saying man has primacy over God, even though God is the Creator. The People are not Frankenstein with a self-defining, rampaging monster...the federal government must remain within its roles defined by the States as enumerated in the Constitution.
Montana and Tennessee have voted to nullify federal gun laws.
IOW, Texas (along with New York and Virginia--and Rhode Island) is still an independent republic and nullification is moot.
“I read it to mean that Medina believes the opposite. That she believes that states have the Constitutional right to nullify federal laws. And that means she has never actually read the Constitution or skipped right past Article VI.”
You worry about Kansas. We’ll take care of Texas. Otherwise we’ll be seeing you on the Red River.
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.