Never mind 'None-sense'. He's a bit proud {pictured above} Non-Sequitur { a.k.a Federal apologist }
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 ...
btrl
And another nonsensical Idabilly post. You and Lee's Ghost are in rare form today.
Never mind 'None-sense'. He's a bit proud {pictured above} Non-Sequitur { a.k.a Federal apologist }
Seriously, Would you rather have your State just be under complete submission ?
Why - Can't your State nullify Federal Law?
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.
Very good. That's pretty much how things were under the Articles of Confederation, when the federal government had to beg funds from the states. The states were in control of the Feds in those days.
Under our current constitution, though, the federal and state government were supposed to be in charge of different things. You certainly couldn't seriously say that Washington, Hamilton, or Madison would have signed a constitution that left the states in charge of national affairs. In so far as national affairs were more important, you could say the federal government was -- and was supposed to be "in charge" -- but the states had their own sphere that Washington was supposed to keep out of.
At some point the federal government came out on top. Rebheads will say it was because of the Civil War, but actually it was the introduction of the federal income tax in 1913 that gave a clear predominance to the federal government. Washington has the money nowadays and the states come begging for their appropriations. Court decisions also play a role. If federal courts find that state violates the Constitution they can overturn it. Does that mean that the federal government is in control, or that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is?
But back to Texas. 35% of the population is Hispanic. Most of them are assimilated, but 3.5 million Texans are foreign born (15% of the population) and the state has 1.2 million illegals. I'm not saying that most of them aren't loyal to the US, but would they be loyal to an independent Texas? If Mexico wanted to push a confrontation which way would they go? Something tells me a lot of African-Americans wouldn't go along with any secessionist movement, either. Ditto for plenty of urban or suburban Whites who were born out of state.
There's a stupid notion out there that states can break up the country however they want, but that nothing can split up a sovereign state. But really, once you start appealing to the men with guns, what's to prevent every group with guns from wanting to impose their own will on their surroundings, whatever the state government might say? The last time secession was tried that's what we got -- little civil wars inside of the border states. And that's what we'll get if secession is attempted again.
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl159.htm
 The point is, as these and other SCOTUS Opinions regarding the 10th Amendment have shown, the ONLY power the Federal Government has over states are the PURSE STRINGS, granted to them via the hated 16th Amendment's PROGRESSIVE Income Tax. The Federal Government cannot FORCE the States to enforce Federal laws, even when a corrupt Congress enacts an unConstitional law because their “experts” say a bill is Constitutional. Just like Pelosi tried to do with Obama's failure on his ObamaCare ... The Democratic Congress KNOWS many of the States will not enforce ObamaCare, and the SCOTUS has consistently backed up the States under the 10th Amendment in this regard. SO ... Congress turns to the IRS, a Federal agency created in 1913 under the 16th Amendment, to enforce the ONLY teeth Congress falsely believes they would have under ObamaCare — an Income Tax Surcharge and FINES on wages and salaries. As the SCOTUS similarly ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the ObamaCare income tax surcharge (aka "a fine") TOO would constitute an unapportioned and indirect tax, NOT provisioned for by the 16th Amendment or the US Constitution.
In the end, the States could tell Washington DC to F*CK OFF, and there's not a DAMN thing Washington DC could do about it other than to close the Purse Strings. The Governors own their respective “National” Guards, so Obama — regardless of whatever power he thinks he may have from Executive Order — has no enforcement power with them to arrest Governors and State Legislatures to not allowing ObamaCare or other bullsh!t Acts of Federal legislation ... Conversely, Washington DC cannot legally use the US military against its own people under Posse Comitatus ... not that our troops woulds follow Federal orders anyway in that situation, even if Obama or Congress tried to suspend Posse Comitatus because of some bogus Federal Emergency to collect Income Taxes ... All that said ... considering how the Federal Government is not too far from INSOLVENCY, the Federal Government will soon be losing the power of the Purse String ... and will not be in a position to dictate much to the States in the first place.
|
Really?
;>)
The issue of the Constitution and the creation of the Union being an act of the States was decided early on. The locus of sovereignty clearly rested with the people, not the States. Both the Union and the States are a creation of the Poeple. Ergo, the States have not the organic sovereign power to secede. In Chisholm, Ex’r. v. Georgia, 2 Dall, 419, 1 U.S. (L.ed., 454, 457, 471, 472), 1793, Justice Wilson stated:
“To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States. But serenely conscious of that fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.” at 454.
“In another sense, according to some writers, every State which governs itself without any dependence on another power, is a sovereign State. Whether, with regard to her own citizens, this is the case of the State of Georgia; whether those citizens have done, as the individuals of England are said, by their late instructors, to have done, surrendered the Supreme Power to the State or Government, and reserved nothing to themselves; or whether, like the people of other States, and of the United States, the citizens of Georgia have reserved the Supreme Power in their own hands; and on that Supreme Power have made the State dependent, instead of being sovereign...As a citizen, I know the Government of the State to be republican; and my short definition of such a Government is, - one constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people. As a Judge in this court, I know, and can decide upon the knowledge, that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the Union, as part of the ‘People of the United States,’ did not surrender the Supreme or sovereign Power to that State; but, as to the purposes of the Union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign State...” at 457.
s stated by Chief Justice Marshall in M’Culloch v. Maryland (1819):
“...In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion.
“It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. ...The Convention which framed the Constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures, but the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States with a request that it might “be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification.”
“This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the state legislatures the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject-by assembling in convention.
“It is true, they assembled in their several states; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the states, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.
“From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is ordained and established in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. The assent of the states, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people.
“But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the state governments. The Constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the state sovereignties.
“It has been said that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the state sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the general government be doubted had it been created by the states
“The powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the Confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, in order to form a more perfect union, it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.
“The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them...”
It is a settled principle that the court is to be the place where laws outside of the enumerated powers are determined to be null and void, not the State legislature.
As stated by Justice Woods for the Court in U.S. v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883)
“...Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government requires the courts of the United States to give effect to the presumption that congress will pass no act not within its constitutional power. This presumption should prevail unless the lack of constitutional authority to pass an act in question is clearly demonstrated. While conceding this, it must, nevertheless, be stated that the government of the United States is one of delegated, limited, and enumerated powers. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; McCulloch v. State, 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. Therefore every valid act of congress must find in the constitution some warrant for its passage. This is apparent by reference to the following provisions of the constitution: Section 1 of the first article declares that all legislative powers granted by the constitution shall be vested in the congress of the United States. Section 8 of the same article enumerates the powers granted to the congress, and concludes the enumeration with a grant of power ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.’ Article 10 of the amendments to the constitution 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.’
“Mr. Justice STORY, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, says:
‘Whenever, therefore, a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power, the first question is whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed, the next inquiry must be whether it is properly an incident to an express power and necessary to its execution. If it be, then it may be exercised by congress. If not, congress cannot exercise it.’ Section 1243, referring to Virginia Reports and Resolutions, January, 1800, pp. 33, 34; President Monroe’s Exposition and Message of May 4, 1822, p. 47; 1 Tuck. Bl. Comm. App. 287, 288; 5 Marsh. Wash. App. note 3; 1 Hamilton’s Works, 117, 121.”
“...The courts enforce the legislative will, when ascertained, if within the constitutional grant of power. But if congress steps outside of its constitutional limitation and attempts that which is beyond its reach, the courts are authorized to, and, when called upon, must, annul its encroachment upon the reserved rights of the states and the people.”
Fairbank v. U.S., 181 U.S. 283 (1901):
“The constitutionality of an act of Congress is a matter always requiring the most careful consideration. The presumptions are in favor of constitutionality, and before a court is justified in holding that the legislative power has been exercised beyond the limits granted, or in conflict with restrictions imposed by the fundamental law, the excess or conflict should be clear. And yet, when clear, if written constitutions are to be regarded as of value, the duty of the court is plain to uphold the Constitution, although in so doing the legislative enactment falls. The reasoning in support of this was, in the early history of this court, forcibly declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 177, 2 L. ed. 60, 73, and nothing can be said to add to the strength of his reasoning. His language is worthy of quotation:
‘The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is altherable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
‘If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
‘Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
‘This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. . . .
‘It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. 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.
‘So if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
‘If, then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
‘The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts as well as other departments are bound by that instrument.’
Really.
Care to cite the high court opinion, dated 1832, that specifies that? (Of course not... ;>)
Or as an alternative, care to tell us why the States could NOT nullify a federal law sending a minority group to concentration camps for extermination (assuming our written Constitution still exists)? Hmmm?
(As you know, James Madison & Thomas Jefferson disagreed with your consistently asinine opinions... ;>)
Really?!
Congrats, once again, N-S!
;>)
Many, many, MANY things have happened since the Nullification Crisis of 1832 ...
Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal courts are the final arbiters
of any and all Constitutional issues?
There is actually no Constitutional justification for this notion.
Really.
Article III where it defines the court's jurisdiction.
Precisely. It is only the law-abiding who are constrained by the law or by what is lawful.
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.
