Good to go.
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 ...
If Texas actually seceded, the wussy Obama admin. wouldn't lift a finger to deploy troops. Just as they handle obvious terror threats and the terrorists themselves, they'd call in their lawyers.
They have RENEGED on ANY such agreements. Take that to court.
I must have missed the part where you stayed independent.
Hardly.
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 who is tasked with deciding that?
Good to go.
You have to understand these are the same people who think we can stop gun crime by making it illegal! They actually seem to think they can adjust reality by dictat.
Firstly, I would say that it is the States who are tasked with deciding that, by exercising their 10th amendment rights to say that the federal government overreached.
So naturally, the next course would be for the federal government to say that the states are wrong, which would force the states to sue the federal government in the Supreme Court.
The the Supreme Court doesn't start it, the States do by challenging the federal government on 10th amendment grounds.
No?
-PJ
Ever hear of Peter Zenger? How about the concept that a publication that defames someone is not libelous if true?
Both stem from the trial of printer Peter Zenger in 17th century New England. The law at that time said ANY publication discrediting or defaming a person was libel. Peter Zenger had published damning factual information about an influential individual, and was charged with Libel.
The jury acquitted Zenger because the LAW WAS UNJUST; Truth cannot be considered libel! Thus, the beginning of jury nullification in US common Law.
Anyone who ignores the United Nations as a World Government Objective obviously fails to see why independence from such organizations, including the US Government, has to always be a consideration when those organizations or governments over step their boundaries and become tyrannical.
The US Constitutions is the ORIGINAL CONTRACT FOR AMERICA. Had the 10th Amendment not been included, giving states the legal foundation to opt out if federal government became tyrannical, I doubt the individual states would have all ratified the Constitution.
“Secession is serious in a way that nullification is not. That is, no serious lawyer could believe that nullification could possibly be effective as a legal possibility. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply deluded or being misled by an ignorant demagogue. To paraphrase former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, we conduct our politics under the Constitution we have, not the Constitution some people wish we had. As it happens, I am quite bitterly critical of a number of defects in the Constitution and support a constitutional convention to correct them,”
Anyone who believes our Constitutional is defective and needs to be changed is not a legal purist, nor believes that individual rights are never negotiable. The author is obviously a populist progressive and a danger to freedom and liberty.
"This construction has since been fully confirmed by the twelfth (now 10th)article of amendments, which declares, "that the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This article was added "to prevent misconstruction or abuse" of the powers granted by the constitution, rather than supposed necessary to explain and secure the rights of the states, or of the people. The powers delegated to the federal government being all positive, and enumerated, according to the ordinary rules of construction, whatever is not enumerated is retained; for, expressum facit tacere tacitum is a maxim in all cases of construction: it is likewise a maxim of political law, that sovereign states cannot be deprived of any of their rights by implication; nor in any manner whatever but by their own voluntary consent, or by submission to a conqueror.
More later.
Regardless of what anybody thinks or want to thinks...its basically a business relationship. Federal Aid is the top revenue source for the states.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm
When interest rates rise...and Feds transfer payments dry up...the states will no longer comply with Federal regulatory requirements...for which the Feds currently reimburse.
At some point only one of two scenarios will play out for California. Either the Feds will move in, take over, and shut down state government and confiscate state revenues for themselves....or some Governor with a brass set, will tell the Feds that this year the Californians will be retaining Federal tax payments within the state to satisfy local obligations. Its a mathematical certainty.
“Second there is NO provision for secession or breaking into 5 states.”
Yes there is. The Federal Government, by executive order, recently established a Governors council of 10 Governors, covering 5 state regions, that report directly to the Sec of Defense and FEMA.
The order is section 1822 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (public law 110-181).
Now why would the federal government want to do something that potentially divides the states into “military jurisdictions”? Are they trying to upstage the potential that individual states may be contemplating similar pacts if nullification and/or secession is a direct response to a tyrannical federal government?
The US Constitution was the original contract for America. Without the provisions of the 10th Amendment being included, which allowed the states the RIGHT to opt out if the federal government overstepped it’s authority, HOW MANY STATES would have ratified the Constitution?
Had the Constitution not been specific in it’s LEGAL language, there could not have been a legally binding contract with the states.
However the Constitution is specific in language that provides the states the right to opt out, using whatever means necessary, which could include insurrection if necessary.
Of course the government will pass laws to protect itsself by making insurrection illegal. But if the government operates illegally, the Constitution provides specific legal remedy to nullify illegal, unconstitutional US Government activity.
Are you saying the Supremacy Clause has NO limits?
What is your point about the Supreme Court ruling on whether federal law violates the Supremacy Clause by acting grossly outside the constitutional grant of power to the federal government?
Are you saying the Supreme Court absolutely will never, ever find that the federal government —no matter what it enacts — has overreached?
Dude.... you are arguing with a plant. Do not expect real answers. Nonsensical will start blathering about something totally unrelated and waste more of your time. FWIW.
The reason this area of law is unclear is that it requires a balancing act -— balancing the power of the federal government doing the things that (supposedly) only the federal government can do against the power of the states to run their own governments the way they see fit.
So a number of constitutional doctrines come into play, such as the Supremacy Clause, federalism, preemption, the interstate commerce clause and so on. But since every question requires a balance, that requires human judgment, which means the SCOTUS can end up drawing a line in a way that zigs and zags.
My own sense of the law, not being expert in this particular area, is that the vast majority of federal “requirements” on the states really are unenforceable except to the extent that the states don’t want to lose federal money for noncompliance. I used the example of the federal school lunch program earlier. I don’t think the feds can call out the National Guard if a state doesn’t participate in the school lunch program, but it can withhold federal “education” dollars.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the “requirement” to collect taxes was not often the same: that is, tied to the state remaining eligible for various federal funds rather than actually being an enforceable requirement per se.
It’s an interesting question for further reading.
The Secession, leading to the Civil War did not garner popular support from the North until the populist introduction of freeing slaves was instituted in the Union War platform.
The initial revolt of the Southern States was because of unfair taxation of cotton and other items of commerce, creating an unfair balance of economics between the Rich north and the impoverished south.
When Lincoln included the abolition of slavery, which then rallied church and religious support for the war, only then did the civil war gain become a “righteous” war.. The elevation of slavery became an emotional subject, even though many southern farms had no slaves, but the slave traders lived mostly in the north. The war was no longer a matter of economics, but a matter of emotions.
Thanks for all the info....GG
Thank you, Lee! I now remember this person from years past and, from my own past experience, I know you are right.
Onward.
Sounds about right to me. The south needed a Texas General for political reasons.
This is key. For the federal government to act, it must have power under the Constitution to do so. Before you even get to questions of the Supremacy Clause, federalism and preemption, for example, you first have to ask whether the feds have authority to do the act / enact the mandate in the first instance.
The SCOTUS has often relied on the interstate commerce clause, for example, for expansive federal power. Yet it is always good to remember that, even at SCOTUS, you can never say never.
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.