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.

[Iron Munro]

“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.”

There you go!

That nails it down very well.

[Bigun]

Correcting the link at 250.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you saying the Supremacy Clause has NO limits?

Of course it does. The laws have to be Constitutional.

Are you saying the Supreme Court absolutely will never, ever find that the federal government —no matter what it enacts — has overreached?

On the contrary, it has in the past and will again in the future.

[Bigun]

Although the federal government can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can possess no legitimate power, but such, as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose, than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its proper limits, and violates the public trust. Its duties, being moreover imposed for the general benefit and security of the several states, in their politic character; and of the people, both in their sovereign, and individual capacity, if these objects be not obtained, the government will not answer the end of its creation: it is therefore bound to the several states, respectively, and to every citizen thereof, for the due execution of those duties. And the observance of this obligation is enforced, by the solemn sanction of an oath, from all who administer the government [31].

Tucker's Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D [Section 2 — Nature of U.S. Constitution; manner of its adoption (cont.)]

The States created the Federal government and not the other way around period end of story!

[Truthsearcher]

EVERYTHING is a matter of political will.
If enough people want something badly enough, they will make it happen.

[BP2]

Hey Non-Sequitur,

SCR-1615 ...

Soon to be approved in a State Capitol near you.

[Solitar]

The question was about the provision for Texas to be five states -- and that WAS a condition granted by Congress for the admission of Texas -- that it could, without having to go back to Congress again, have four more Texan states admitted (probably West Texas, East Texas, South Texas, North Texas and Travis County/Austin).

The ten Federal Regions were first established by President Nixon in 1972 with Executive Order 11647 which was reimplemented by President Carter (Executive Order 12314) and revoked by Reagan in 1983 with Executive Order 12407. Now Obama is re-establishing them formally from the highest level.

These ten federal regions are not new under Obama. They originally were for the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HEW, HUD, Transportation, Energy, EPA, GSA, FEMA, SBA, OPM, CSA, and Corps of Engineers (see the above link for Carter's order). Most of those agencies still use those regions for internal organization -- for going on forty years now (since Nixon started them in 1972)

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

Which isn't much. This is as worthless as all your other posts are.

[Lee'sGhost]

So says the most irrelevant contributor on FR.

LOL!

Sorry, Pee Wee, try again.

[Non-Sequitur]

That was last year and it died without any action. I believe they would have to resubmit it for the upcoming legislative session in order for them to dither some more. Still, our legislature won’t oppose the state Supreme Court when they overstep their bounds and set minimum spending for schools so I don’t see them standing up to the federal government. Assuming that they really understand what they’re voting on.

[Non-Sequitur]

So says the most irrelevant contributor on FR.

Second most irrelevant, now that you're here.

[Lee'sGhost]

LMAO! You really are Pee Wee Herman.

“I know you are, but what am I.”

And you fall for it every time.

Thanks. Best laugh I’ve had in a while.

[BP2]

> If memory serves the idea that a state could nullify a
> federal law died in 1832.

In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The Court re-affirmed that Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Court re-affirmed that Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.

You act as if that's something new rather than precedent going back over 150 years. In Prigg v Pennsylvania in 1842 the Supreme Court ruled that states could not be compelled to enforce federal fugitive slave laws. That's been upheld in a number of cases since then.

And I'll point out that New York v U.S. was a Supreme Court case. It was the court which struck down the enforcement of the regulation and not a case of a state nullifying the law and saying on their own that they did not have to abide by it.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nothing worthwhile to add, as always. You are nothing if not predictable.

[BP2]

> That was last year and it died without any action.

It’s in committee right now as I understand it.

With the mood of the electorate, I don’t think it die in 2010 ...

[Lee'sGhost]

LOL! No problem, Pee Wee. My work here is done. And it was so easy.

LOL!

[Non-Sequitur]

You are aware it’s a non-binding resolution right?

[Idabilly]

“If memory serves the idea that a state could nullify a federal law died in 1832.”

Another infamous ‘None-Sense’ sighting. Licking Federal boot and all.