The legal fiction that states can nullify US law persist in Texas

Austin American Statesman ^ | 2.6.2010 | Sanford Levinson

[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.

[Non-Sequitur]

By the way, what is your solution to federal overeach or do you believe, as it appears, that there is no such thing.

I have no idea how you could reach that conclusion. The solution is the courts.

Should I conclude that you disagree with the recent D.C. v Heller decision? Or, for that matter, the Kelo v New London decision?

[Rome2000]

This is how you fix it.

Texas and maybe Louisiana decide to secede, and the marxists in DC issue orders to bring them back.

The US Military instead rounds up the "Congressional Progressive Caucus" and puts them on a plane to Cuba.

Provisional military government for 6 months, then new elections for all congressional seats and the WH, incumbents need not apply.

Only tax paying citizens and veterans are enfranchised in the new Republic.

All amendments other than the original bill of rights are repealed.

"Dueling" legalized within the Washington DC limits.

Problem solved

[Rome2000]

The Supreme Court ruled on it and said it was unconstitutional.

Oh, OK it's settled then.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're obviously way smarter than all of us rubes.

[Rome2000]

One possibility, of course, is that President Barack Obama would, like Lincoln, call on federal troops, including those stationed at Fort Hood, to arrest secessionist traitors and to fire upon their supporters.

ROTFLOL, and he and that wookie with the boob belts would wind up like the Ceausescu's.

[Bigun]

If Jefferson had been talking about overthrowing the British Crown and taking over the reins of that government you would be right but he was not talking about that! He as talking about the American Colonies throwing off the chains of that government and becoming independent sovereign states and that is EXACTLY what happened!

In any case, you miss the point entirely! He was not talking about a "revolutionary" right but an intrinsic right possessed by ALL free men!

[bayliving]

Obama would have to give the order to fire on and kill hundreds of thousands of US citizens at that point.

Let's not forget that the Obamination would need the support of a large number of the military, police and whatever "other" federal protection agencies in order to carry out such a plan.

While I think the Obamination is evil at hart I don't however think that enough Americans would be willing to turn their guns on each other for this pres__ent.

At least I hope I am right.

[bayliving]

The War Between the States was a righteous war, and we better encompassed our ideals by enduring it.

All well and good but the difference here is that the "people" are fighting enslavement BY their own government.

It is no longer a true STATE issue, rather an individual struggle against an oppressive government out to confiscate his/her wealth and freedom.

[Non-Sequitur]

Problem solved

You forgot the 'Doing away with the Constitution' part.

[x]

I guess every state needs a rectum. Austin is Texas' rectum.

There are places a lot worse than Austin in Texas.

I guess there's more than one sphincter in Texas.

[mad_as_he$$]

Nice words except that that does not abrogate the contract with the unites States of America.

[mad_as_he$$]

the Constitution has no provision for recession of the contract. Your powers to change things reside in your ability to elect representatives to the united States of America (a corporation).

[Non-Sequitur]

the Constitution has no provision for recession of the contract.

Sorry but I disagree with that. The Constitution does not say that a state may not leave the Union. The logical conclusion is that a state may leave in the same manner as which a state may join - with the consent of the other states as expressed through a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

[mad_as_he$$]

lol. Man you guys just do not get it. The Feds would cut off everything. Power, water, access to ports, MONEY, seized all assets outside of Texes and close the roads to major cities. The secession would not last a year and then the new contract to let Texas back in to the Union would be an onerous one indeed.

[mad_as_he$$]

As I said you people do not have a clue about contract law. If it isn't in the contract it does not exist. Courts are the arbiter of the contract. There is a mechanism to change the contract through amendments. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR STATES LEAVING SO THERE IS NO CURRENT MECHANISM FOR IT TO BE DONE.

[mad_as_he$$]

As I said you people do not have a clue about contract law. If it isn't in the contract it does not exist. Courts are the arbiter of the contract. There is a mechanism to change the contract through amendments. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR STATES LEAVING SO THERE IS NO CURRENT MECHANISM FOR IT TO BE DONE.

[bayliving]

The Presidential Proclamation declaring peace between the United States and Texas after the Civil War, dated August 20, 1866, states very clearly in the following passage that no state had the right to leave the Union (emphasis added in all capitals.)

And whereas, the President of the United States, by further proclamation issued on the second day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, did promulgate and declare, that there no longer existed any armed resistance of misguided citizens, or others, to the authority of the United States in any, or in all the States before mentioned, excepting only the State of Texas, and did further promulgate and declare that the laws could be sustained and enforced in the several States before mentioned, except Texas, by the proper civil authorities, State, or Federal, and that the people of the said States, except Texas, are well and loyally disposed, and have conformed or will conform in their legislation to the condition of affairs growing out of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting slavery within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States;

And did further declare in the same proclamation THAT IT IS THE MANIFEST DETERMINATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT NO STATE, OF ITS OWN WILL, HAS A RIGHT OR POWER TO GO OUT OF OR SEPARATE ITSELF FROM, OR BE SEPARATED FROM THE AMERICAN UNION; and that, therefore, each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States;

Was this a Federal Law radified by the States? Or was this just a proclimation?

Furthermore:

If states aren't sovereign then why do we have them?

Why do they tax in addition to federal taxes?

Why do we have state and local police departments, fire departments and schools?

If states AREN'T sovereign we should just have a federal system and do away with states all together. After all, what difference does it make?

You see, you can't have a sovereign state that "CAN'T" leave the union. Either it is a sovereign state that has the right of self interest and can leave the union if the union no longer has the states interests at heart or it is part of a federal conglomeration with NO states rights. That all laws are passed at the federal level and flow down from there.

Which is it here? You can't have it both ways.

[mad_as_he$$]

First I am not having trying to have it both ways. States are sovereign to govern their own affairs. States are not sovereign to in matters that of interstate trade, foreign treaties. the common defense etc. My point is that the is NO existing mechanism for a state to legally leave the Union. That is all. There are acts from the post civil war period that pertain to states rights etc. Read some of the annotated notes on them it will help you see the web that was woven after the CW was over.

[FlyingEagle]

Much obliged. Hook ‘em.

[Solitar]

For this and other acts of TREASON Lincoln was shot down in cold-blood by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865

[bayliving]

lol. Man you guys just do not get it. The Feds would cut off everything. Power, water, access to ports, MONEY, seized all assets outside of Texes and close the roads to major cities. The secession would not last a year and then the new contract to let Texas back in to the Union would be an onerous one indeed.

LOL!

That doesn't sound like extortion to you?

Why would ANY state want to stay in the Union after that? In fact, MANY right and good people would move to Texas to help keep her going.

Tell me, what would happen if Texas shut down her refineries that supply MOST of the United States with petroleum products in response to a federal blockade of the state? Lots of those in Houston area....

At least the Obamination would get his $8 to $10 a gallon gas prices for the rest of the US that way.