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 ...
With the help of our Progressive run FedGov, I might add.
Why not? Jefferson was certainly talking about revolutionary actions when he wrote the Declaration of Independence since none of the men who signed it were under any illusions that their actions were legal. And there are times when free men must decide that there is no solution within the law and the time has come, as H.L Menken put it, "...to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." There can be no denying that. All I'm saying is that don't pretend that it's lawful or Constitutional. It is a remedy for when the law and Constitution no longer work. I don't think we're at that point in our history. Obviously others disagree.
LOL! Tell it, brother.
As do I.
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.
On the contrary, the Bill of Rights is part and parcel of the Constitution as a whole. And nowhere in that entire document can I find where the individual states are empowered with deciding what is Constitutional and what is not. That is reserved for the Supreme Court.
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.
Not at all. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury v. Madison, "Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." The states do not expound and interpret the law. The Courts do.
No. Texas would not apply in any case because Texas did not ratify the Constitution. Texas was allowed to join the Union and only with the permission of the other states.
Well then you had better hope you have better luck than last time.
Perhaps not. But that is not the same as saying that Texas, or any other state, could not legally leave the Union. I don't think that the Constitution prevents that.
Hehe, I like your metaphor. That’s spot on. The so-called conservatives and/or patriots on this board saying “the Fed has said it’s not OK” as though that were a meaningful argument should do some thinking on the topic.
*blows a kiss*
lol
I think what you're referring to is a November ballot amendment to nullify the pot law. It hasn't passed yet, and would not pass Supreme Court muster if it did.
Come to think of it, aren't you one of the guys who said that secession was illegal because of a ruling made AFTER the Civil War? Or was it Wlat? It doesn't matter, it's just pretty funny.
You're wrong, as per par. I've never said secession was illegal. Secession without the consent of all impacted parties is unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Texas v White case.
Not really, no.
I’m not surprised.
Cacique; mad_as_he$$;
I thought the civil war settled the question once and for all. The federal government rules supreme.
Actually no you can't.
And just what would the federal government do? What, exactly? Cut off "their" federal funds? Invade and occupy Texas?
As of February 28, 2009 1,454,515 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components.2,302,515
Considering the percentage of support troops to combat troops is roughly 5 - 1 that is 460,503 combat troops. Say the best that could be applied to such a issue as Texas telling the communist regime in dee-cee to get the hell out is about 20% of it’s combat troops, that comes to 92,100 federal troops invading Texas. That is about 2.9 federal troops per square mile of land in Texas.
The population density of Texas is on the average 93 per square mile with roughly one in three being a owner of firearms. That puts the ratio of armed Texans to potential federal troops at about 3-1. That would be the absolute best circumstance for the federals.
Seeing as how at least 60% for the troops would simply do nothing against their fellow countrymen and probably advise the remaining 40% to take heed once deployed into Texas the number of active federal troops attempting to actually do anything at all once in Texas would drop the ratio to the federals being outnumbered 8 - 1.
Now seeing as how the locals do not require long supply chains and can blend into the surroundings thus rendering most of the federals tactics useless, combined with how wildly popular the notion among the rest of the Texans of a communist dee-cee regimes' invasion of Texas would be, it becomes clear that resistance to such an invasion will be unyielding.
An attempt of invading Texas will make dee-cees' amnesty for illegal aliens and commie health care attempts look like ice-cream truck regulations. I find the collective arguments regarding what the supreme court said or what a certain bunch of lawyers said in the light of a very real possibility of a shooting war breaking out as the result of a federal government invasion attempt to be nothing short of totally ignorant of reality.
Or perhaps there is the belief that given the eventuality of a choice between session or full blown communism that 6,000,000 fully armed TEXANS are just going to say "okey-dokey, come on in and disarm me, take all that I own and indoctrinate my kids?"
Oh yea, right, THAT is gonna go over just peachy with a bunch of pissed off Texans. So again, just what would the federal government do? What, exactly? Cut off "federal" highway funds? Guess how dee-cee gets those "federal" highway funds in the first place.
One more thing, Texas would only be the beginning...
Glad I didn’t disappoint.
WELL SAID!
There will aways be those out there who would rather cower in a hole than protect their freedoms.
Thanks for the ping!
I knew that you wouldn’t.
By the way, what is your solution to federal overeach or do you believe, as it appears, that there is no such thing. In otherwords, can the feds make any laws they want? Can anything be done about it if they do?
It’s like you have a lousy job, so instead of quitting, you ask your boss for permission to quit.
He says no, so you suck it up the next 10 years without realizing that (other than in a slavery situation) EVERY worker has the right to quit a job.
Always. ‘Hope you’re well.
I’m doing fine. I hope all is well with you, too, dear onedoug!
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.