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 ...
The Constitution does not empower the States.
The Federal government does not empower the States.
If a power is not prohibited to the States, noror delegated to the Federal government, then the States have that power.
But reducing the Constitution to a simple question of contract law, I believe, belittles it. It is more than that.
OK. Who decides if a power is delegated to the Federal government?
“Or, for that matter, the Kelo v New London decision?”
Do not agree with that decision.
“The solution is the courts.”
Ah, yes. The “courts” which are frequently out in left field with the “living Constitution” philosophy so many federal judges espouse. The courts which pull “rights” out of thin air, order local govts to raise taxes, impose their personal views on the rest of us. Those courts.
You are an advocate, then, of an imperial judiciary? Or do you have a solution for judicial over reach? I realize congress has the power of the purse as well as the ability to impeach federal judges, but they do not. What then?
It appears to me, from your posts, that the feds have ultimate power in everything, and when they overstep their bounds there is nothing we are allowed to do.
Texas and its red state allies have their own power, water, food, and ports.
The blue states, such as New England, are the ones dependent on red States for power, water, food and ports.
The States.
Once states take things into their own hands, communities and smaller groups will do the same. And then it’s “Hello, Somalia!”
Again, to those who don't understand our Constitutional history...
The States are to be in control of the Feds, not the other way around.
In what sense was it a righteous war?
It may be "righteous" to abolish slavery but the wide spread notion that Lincoln was motivated to fight the confederacy by his desire to free slaves and abolish slavery doesn't totally comport with the facts or his own statements and actions before the war and during the war.
Consider this:
So he was prepared to permit slavery in the rebelliously states to continue as long as they gave up their challenge to federal authority.
Subsequently, when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it only "freed" the slaves in the confederacy, and in fact, did not even apply to every place in the confederacy.
Further, his Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the non-rebel "northern" states - and there were plenty there at the time. And it did not abolish or outlaw the owning of slaves in the north.
At its heart the War of Northern Aggression was a war of power politics to assert the dominance of the northern industrialists. The agricultural south was fueled by slave labor which made it relatively autonomous and able to prosper independently of the industrialized north and the power bloc that dominated the federal government.
Why not? You're more comfortable with the intrusive federal government telling a state what it can and cannot do?
You are an advocate, then, of an imperial judiciary?
I would say that the shoe is on the other foot. You say that the states are supreme and the masters of their own domains. Yet you seem to have no problem with the courts doing just that. You disagree with the Kelo decision. In that decision the court refused to overturn a state court's decision that the action in condemning the land was legal. So what you are saying is that you don't want states do decide what is permissible but instead expect big mother Supreme Court to step on them and tell Connecticut what they can and cannot do. And in the Heller decision why shouldn't D.C. or one of the states be able to decide on their own what guns should be available in their territory? That's the problem with people like you. You're vocal in the extreme against the overreaching power of the courts and you rail against an imperial judiciary...unless, of course, when you want them to step in and slap the states around. Selective tyranny at its finest.
The states cannot decide what laws they will or will not enforce. They are not the arbiters of what is Constitutional or what is not. For better or worse, only one institution should hold that authority because otherwise you will have 50 different interpretations of what the Constitution actually means. I believe that power should rest with the Supreme Court. Anything else is anarchy.
And if the states are wrong? What if Colorado decided tomorrow that the federal government had not the power to tell it what firearms is should allow private individuals to own, are you willing to accept it?
"You can't kill the beast while sucking at its teat"
-- Claire Wolfe
.
“You say that the states are supreme and the masters of their own domains.”
Where have I written that?
“You disagree with the Kelo decision.” It’s blatantly unconstitutional at the federal level. Haven’t read Ct’s constitution.
“So what you are saying is that you don’t want states do decide what is permissible but instead expect big mother Supreme Court to step on them and tell Connecticut what they can and cannot do.”
My goodness! First you tell me I’m for nothing but state authority, then you tell me I’m for nothing but federal judicial supremacy. Get a grip.
“... D.C. or one of the states be able to decide on their own what guns should be available in their territory?”
They already do, hoss. For example, in the state of Washington it is illegal to possess a machinegun or any parts of one.
“You’re vocal in the extreme against the overreaching power of the courts” How so? Please show me where I’m “vocal in the extreme”.
“Selective tyranny at its finest.” LOL! You are in a mood.
“The states cannot decide what laws they will or will not enforce.”
They already do. Heck, even cities are ignoring federal law by declaring their cities sanctuary cities, and preventing local law enforcement from dealing with illegal aliens.
“I believe that power should rest with the Supreme Court. Anything else is anarchy.”
Real fine. Back to the question which you danced around and ignored. What to do when the federal judiciary oversteps their bounds and nothing is done by congress? Or do you believe that that hasn’t happened repeatedly?
The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That right existed before the USA and before Colorado. So if Colorado told the Feds the same as Montana and Tennessee did, or went further and passed a law that Feds trying to enforce federal gun laws would be arrested and jailed -- that I would support.
And if Colorado legislators try to infringe further on our right to bear arms, those legislators will be replaced -- or the red part of Colorado may secede from Denver.
I hope that Texas would either prevent Austin from screwing the rest of Texas, or they could cut off power, water, food, and trade with Austin.
Yep. You can’t have your freedom and feed at the government trough at the same time. It’s not just the “welfare queens.” As you mentioned in the example of the governors wanting to resist Porkulus money -— in S.C., I think, the legislature even sued the Gov for the money -— it seems like everyone has lost the basic idea that you actually can just walk away from the money.
Sort of like refusing to take a bailout from your parents -— because you know it comes with strings you don’t want to be tied by. How many kids do that?
A point that needs to be clarified more often: refusal to bow to every federal mandate that comes out of the Congressional hat does not = secession.
There may be other issues / problems invovled, but an assertion of state sovereignty in relation to a particular act of the federal government is nowhere near the same as secession.
Interesting question. First thought is that the individual income tax pretty much goes directly to Washington, as far as I know. It is not collected by the states. And that's a big chunk of change right there.
Otherwise, your question has two aspects: (1) can the states refuse to give certain monies to the federal governmeent? The answer to that is maybe. It would depend on the authority by which the federal government acted. That's the general question of whether the federal government is taking the money from the states under a valid (constitutional) grant of authority. But (2) would the states refuse to give money to the federal government, even if they could in some cases? We are so far along the path of the states being no better off than stereotypical welfare queens, dependent upon the federal government, that it seems it would be hard to get the feds' claws out of the states in any scenario.
But how many states are willing to do that? Even if a governor is willing, what about the legislature?
Of course, many more may get more willing here shortly. The political winds, they are a-changing.
You know very well that the Supremacy Clause has limits.
What part of “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof” is unclear? That is the issue here. Whether a given federal law is made in pursuance of the Constitution.
And I never said I “blamed” the federal government for tying its policy goals to federal money. In fact, that makes sense. I’m simply pointing out that much of what people think of as states being under the thumb of federal law is actually just states voluntarily following the federal law in order to get the federal bennies.
I think the point is that a “legal” secession is not what some Texans are seeking - more of a “Come and Take It” statement. The hope is that the citizenry of the USA will revolt and re-establish the government we are supposed ot have, not the one that has been allowed to morph into the abomination it has become. The threat of secession gets like-minded people thinking about redress... first we have November to deal with to send the message. Should it not be heeded after that, then I suspect calls for secession will come from not just Texas, but other states as well. I am hoping that whatever occurs is non-violent, but I am starting to think with the media and leftists running our universities and secondary education centers that we may not be left with any choice. Whether legal or not, a rebellion or revolution will probably happen in our lifetime. The country is far too-polarized - maybe even worse than 1850-1865.
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.